Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023: Difference between revisions
add comment |
→temple of apollo palatinus: add comment |
||
| Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{cot|collapsed}} |
|||
i am fairly certain that the link to the "[[Golden Age]]" article is inappropriate, as that article focuses on a period in greek mythology, but i am not sure where best to retarget that link, assuming that there is an appropriate target. sources seem to agree that the [[Pax Romana|pax romana]] is considered rome's golden age, but linking to this article doesn't appear to make sense in the context of the blurb, which talks about the restoration of such a golden age rather than the beginning of one. the "[[golden age (metaphor)]]" article might be appropriate, though it also references the pax romana as rome's golden age. [[User:Dying|dying]] ([[User talk:Dying|talk]]) 23:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
i am fairly certain that the link to the "[[Golden Age]]" article is inappropriate, as that article focuses on a period in greek mythology, but i am not sure where best to retarget that link, assuming that there is an appropriate target. sources seem to agree that the [[Pax Romana|pax romana]] is considered rome's golden age, but linking to this article doesn't appear to make sense in the context of the blurb, which talks about the restoration of such a golden age rather than the beginning of one. the "[[golden age (metaphor)]]" article might be appropriate, though it also references the pax romana as rome's golden age. [[User:Dying|dying]] ([[User talk:Dying|talk]]) 23:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
| Line 239: | Line 240: | ||
:::: oh, you're right about that, {{u|UndercoverClassicist}}; i hadn't considered that before. this might be my bias showing again: i assume that, on wikipedia, the shared context includes the presumption that there may not have been a first coming of christ, and that there may not have been a king arthur. i am, admittedly, much less knowledgeable about roman history, and hadn't realized until recently that the pax romana was considered rome's golden age. (i had been familiar with the pax romana, but didn't know if anything else could also be considered a golden age of rome.) that being said, i am easily confused, so i might not be a good benchmark to determine if a rewording is called for.{{pb}}{{u|Wehwalt}}, i am currently assuming that you are not an undercover classicist yourself. if so, did this blurb suggest to you that there was a historical golden age of rome before the temple was built? [[User:Dying|dying]] ([[User talk:Dying|talk]]) 11:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
:::: oh, you're right about that, {{u|UndercoverClassicist}}; i hadn't considered that before. this might be my bias showing again: i assume that, on wikipedia, the shared context includes the presumption that there may not have been a first coming of christ, and that there may not have been a king arthur. i am, admittedly, much less knowledgeable about roman history, and hadn't realized until recently that the pax romana was considered rome's golden age. (i had been familiar with the pax romana, but didn't know if anything else could also be considered a golden age of rome.) that being said, i am easily confused, so i might not be a good benchmark to determine if a rewording is called for.{{pb}}{{u|Wehwalt}}, i am currently assuming that you are not an undercover classicist yourself. if so, did this blurb suggest to you that there was a historical golden age of rome before the temple was built? [[User:Dying|dying]] ([[User talk:Dying|talk]]) 11:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::I don't have a clue. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I don't have a clue. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::: no worries, Wehwalt. in that case, i'll assume that a rewording isn't necessary. i've {{diff||next|1187553557|implemented}} UndercoverClassicist's suggestion to target the relevant section in the "Golden Age" article, but have left the actual wording as is. thanks, both of you! [[User:Dying|dying]] ([[User talk:Dying|talk]]) 05:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
== yugoslav torpedo boat ''t1'' == |
== yugoslav torpedo boat ''t1'' == |
||
Revision as of 05:59, 10 December 2023
Only TFA schedulers should make changes to the table immediately below. But please feel free to note any concerns, queries or thoughts below it. Thanks.
Notes
florence petty
collapsed
|
|---|
|
did petty work long enough in somers town during the 1910s that it would be reasonable to describe her time working in the area as "[d]uring the 1910s"? the article body states that "[s]hortly after 1910 Petty was employed in a dental and medical centre in Newport, Essex ... until October 1914 when she was employed by the NFRA as a travelling lecturer", and it seems unusual if petty worked in somers town while either working in newport or travelling. my impression after reading the article body is that saying "During the 1900s" may be more accurate, especially if a book about her work was published in 1910, but i am unable to confirm this from the article alone. dying (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
|
thaddeus mccotter 2012 presidential campaign
collapsed
|
|---|
|
i presume that the term "Wall Street" is being used as a metonym in the blurb, as i did not get the impression from the article that mccotter focused his campaign on the physical street in manhattan's financial district. the article that the link targets, however, does focus on the physical street. since there will likely be main page readers unfamiliar with the use of this term as a metonym, would it be more appropriate to replace the link with one that more explicitly states what it is referring to? for example, "Wall Street" could be replaced by "banking" (targeting the "Banking in the United States" article) or "financial services" (targeting the "Financial services in the United States" article). dying (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
|
abishabis
collapsed
|
|---|
|
i am just noting here for the benefit of the tfa coordinators, in case it comes up at wp:errors, that i had considered the cree nation to be the relevant country to reference in this blurb. note that canada is not mentioned in either the article lead or body, and that the canadian confederation did not occur until 1867. also, i admittedly relied on the extra character allowance for blurbs without images, so i apologize in advance for creating extra work if an image is eventually added. dying (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
|
janet(s)
collapsed
|
|---|
|
in the episode, was the points system actually used to sort good and bad acts? my impression from the article's plot summary was that the system was used to sort good and bad people. assigning points to the acts seems to have been part of the method used by the system, rather than the purpose of the system. dying (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
|
ohmdenosaurus
collapsed
|
|---|
i am just noting here that i have edited the blurb to avoid using the name of the genus metonymically to refer to specimens of the genus, following this error report.courtesy pinging JMCHutchinson to check to see if there is anything i may have overlooked. dying (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
|
doom
would it be more appropriate to mention the estimated number of players by 1995 before the estimated number of copies sold by 1999? the current order initially suggested to me that the first estimate was based on the number of people who had played the game by some date on or after 1999, as i had incorrectly assumed that the estimates were in chronological order before i realized that two years after the launch would have been 1995. dying (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
hector berlioz
collapsed
|
|---|
i had two questions about this blurb.
dying (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
|
city hall mrt station and raffles place mrt station
i had two questions about this blurb.
- would it be useful to add a pixel-thick line between the two pictures, to more clearly show that the image consists of two pictures? i recognize that raising the issue might be a bit picky, though i thought i might mention it because it took me a bit longer than i'd care to admit to realize that the image was a composite. even now, the image remains a bit disorienting to me.
- would it be more appropriate to replace the wording "are paired cross-platform interchanges on" with "offer a paired cross-platform interchange between" or something similar? admittedly, i am neither an expert in railway interchange terminology nor one in singaporean english, but the dialect of english used in the "cross-platform interchange" article appears to use the singular "paired cross-platform interchange" when describing such an interchange between two stations. however, the article also uses the plural "cross-platform interchanges" when describing certain stations, so perhaps the wording "are both stations with cross-platform interchanges between" could also work.
i also wanted to note that i don't know what the character limits are for blurbs covering multiple featured articles, but i believe the most recent such blurb is this one, which has 1207 characters. the length of the current blurb for the mrt stations is decently shorter than that example, so i am assuming that there is no issue here. dying (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the images, I don't know how to make such a line but would have no objection. As for the phrasing, considering the nominator wrote the blurb, I tend to assume that the choice of language was deliberate when using jargon and would not change it lightly. As for the character limit, I don't see why it should be more than for any other blurb, but if it gets by the people who worry about such things, that is fine..--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Dying: if you're saying the most recent blurb that tried to cover two FAs at once is from 2015, that tells me that we don't do that very often, probably with good reason. The only current request I know of for that (after December) is at April 5 at WP:TFAP ... but that's for a submarine class and the two submarines in that class, so that seems okay. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Correction, I see one more request for 3 articles at once (Oct 25 at TFAP) but it's the same thing: a ship class and its two ships. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Dank, i'm admittedly not positive if that was the last time a blurb has featured more than one article. i was largely relying on this section of wp:tfaodd. (i also quickly reviewed the archives for uses of {{TFAFULL}}.) as i'm not really experienced with such blurbs, i am not familiar with what issues may arise when they run. is there anything that i should watch out for?offhand, the only possible issue i can think of is wp:itnbalance, which generally ends up being dealt with by itn (though the guidelines for otd also mention it here). on my screen, the mrt blurb takes up about four lines more than usual. below, i've produced a mock-up of roughly how the blurb would look like on the main page, along with how the previous blurb would look like, so that you can compare the lengths of the two.
The City Hall and Raffles Place MRT stations are paired cross-platform interchanges on the North–South line (NSL) and East–West line (EWL) of the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system. Both are situated in the Downtown Core district: City Hall station is near landmarks such as the former City Hall, St Andrew's Cathedral and the Padang, while Raffles Place station serves Merlion Park, The Fullerton Hotel and the Asian Civilisations Museum. The stations were first announced in 1982. Constructing the tunnels between the City Hall and Raffles Place stations required the draining of the Singapore River. The stations opened on 12 December 1987 as part of the MRT extension to Outram Park station. Cross-platform transfers between the NSL and EWL began on 28 October 1989, ahead of the split of the MRT network into two lines. Both stations are designated Civil Defence shelters. City Hall station features a mural by Simon Wong which depicts government buildings in the area, while two murals at Raffles Place station by Lim Sew Yong and Thang Kiang How depict scenes of Singapore's history. (See City Hall MRT station and Raffles Place MRT station.)
Hector Berlioz (11 December 1803 – 8 March 1869) was a French Romantic composer. His output includes orchestral works such as Harold in Italy, choral pieces including his Requiem and L'enfance du Christ, and works of hybrid genres such as the "dramatic symphony" Roméo et Juliette and the "dramatic legend" La damnation de Faust. Expected to enter medicine, Berlioz defied his family by taking up music, and won the Prix de Rome in 1830. Berlioz married the Irish Shakespearean actress Harriet Smithson, who inspired his first major success, the Symphonie fantastique, in which an idealised depiction of her occurs throughout. His first opera, Benvenuto Cellini, was a failure. The second, the epic Les Troyens, was so large in scale that it was never staged in its entirety during his lifetime. Meeting only occasional success in France as a composer, Berlioz turned to conducting, in which he gained an international reputation. He also wrote musical journalism throughout much of his career. (Full article...)
- should we mention the unusual length of the mrt blurb at wt:itn, so that they are aware of this potential issue? (interestingly, there's a monster nomination at dyk right now that, if successful in its current form, will result in a hook featuring 29 articles simultaneously.)on a completely different note, when i was reviewing the archives, i came across two different oddities.
- Has there been a discussion with Main Page people about TFA blurbs that take up significantly more space than usual? (Four lines might be seen as significant.) If not, then for the months I schedule, I would try to avoid that (even if we're mentioning two or three FAs ... and that still seems like a special case to me, not something that we want to do without a good reason.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- this blurb appears to have passed in two arguments to {{TFAFULL}} back before the template was changed to take two arguments. (the second argument appears to have been an attempt to stylize the link text appearance, as is often done with standard wikilinks.) as a result, the second argument was ignored on the blurb's run date (when the blurb appeared correctly), but in the archives, the second argument is currently being interpreted as a featured topic (which doesn't exist).
- I removed the second link. Thanks for catching that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- this blurb appears to have had its instance of {{TFAFULL}} inadvertently removed before its run date, and no one appears to have restored it since.
- I left this one alone. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- i don't know what our policy is regarding editing blurbs that have already run, so i thought i might mention my observations here. dying (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- should we mention the unusual length of the mrt blurb at wt:itn, so that they are aware of this potential issue? (interestingly, there's a monster nomination at dyk right now that, if successful in its current form, will result in a hook featuring 29 articles simultaneously.)on a completely different note, when i was reviewing the archives, i came across two different oddities.
temple of apollo palatinus
collapsed
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
i am fairly certain that the link to the "Golden Age" article is inappropriate, as that article focuses on a period in greek mythology, but i am not sure where best to retarget that link, assuming that there is an appropriate target. sources seem to agree that the pax romana is considered rome's golden age, but linking to this article doesn't appear to make sense in the context of the blurb, which talks about the restoration of such a golden age rather than the beginning of one. the "golden age (metaphor)" article might be appropriate, though it also references the pax romana as rome's golden age. dying (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
|
yugoslav torpedo boat t1
collapsed
|
|---|
i had two questions about this blurb.
dying (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|
lever house
collapsed
|
|---|
i had two questions about this blurb.
dying (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
not my responsibility
would it be helpful to crop the image so that it is more evident what the thumbnail depicts? (i recognize that the obvious joke here is to reply to me with "not my responsibility".) on my screen, the words look like a faint fuzzy dash. i admittedly couldn't tell at all from the thumbnail what it was trying to illustrate. dying (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- on it. commons changed the rules in such a way I can't overwrite the file anymore like I did last year, so let me request for perms before I do so Elias 🌊 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 04:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
c. o. brocato
it looks like st. john's high school is now called "Loyola College Prep". would it be appropriate to add a link to that article?
i also wanted to note that i added the infobox image to the blurb because it appears to have been published in a yearbook in 1953 without either a copyright notice or subsequent copyright registration. the image was uploaded about a week ago, which is why it wasn't present in the article at the time the blurb was initially drafted. dying (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dying: Nice find with St. John's / Loyola College Prep; I added links to it. Also, if you have confirmed that the added image if public domain, then somebody should probably delete the other image as that was a fair use one I added when I was unable to find a PD one. (Should there be something added to the "alt" parameter as well?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
tolui
as the blurb discusses tolui's sacrifice of his own self rather than just something he had an interest in, would it be more appropriate to link to the "altruistic suicide" article rather than the "self-sacrifice" article? dying (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Works for me dying. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
sun in fiction
this source suggests to me that "Surveying a Dying Sun" is the title of the artwork, rather than, for example, the title of a short story. if so, should the title be in italics, as per mos:italictitle? i think, if this is the case, the caption in the blurb could also be reworded as "Surveying a Dying Sun, a 1953 magazine cover". dying (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hm. We seem to give the titles of these cover artworks in "quotes" rather than italics, see e.g. Kenneth S. Fagg and If (magazine). For what it's worth, ISFDB also uses quotes here. Let's ping our expert on these magazines, Mike Christie, to make sure we get it right. TompaDompa (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether these should be italicized or not. Artworks such as Irises are italicized, but in bibliographic sources such as [1] (a reliable source and the most authoritative magazine bibliography there is) they are not italicized. I would lean towards not italicizing them myself based on what I've seen in other reference works but could be persuaded otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looking again at MOS:ITALICS I think the relevant distinction given there is between major and minor works. These seem to me to be minor works, so quotes are appropriate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether these should be italicized or not. Artworks such as Irises are italicized, but in bibliographic sources such as [1] (a reliable source and the most authoritative magazine bibliography there is) they are not italicized. I would lean towards not italicizing them myself based on what I've seen in other reference works but could be persuaded otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
antarctica
the text "governed by about 30 countries" links to the "Territorial claims in Antarctica" article, which appears to focus on the territorial claims and their history, and doesn't really seem to discuss anything about any governance currently present in antarctica. i couldn't find a suitable alternative article for the link to target; the "Antarctic Treaty System" article briefly touches upon the subject, but it is already linked elsewhere in the blurb. would it be more appropriate to simply have the text not link to any article? dying (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- See what you think of what I've done there. Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
battle of the trebia
did sempronius's formation actually "f[ight] their way out to the safety of Piacenza"? the article body suggests to me that, although they fought to break through the carthaginian army, after they broke off their pursuit, they deliberately avoided engaging the carthaginians when heading to piacenza.
Sempronius [...] ordered them away from the site of the battle and [they] reached [...] Placentia without interference from the Carthaginians.
i briefly thought that maybe the breaking through could be considered "f[ighting] their way out", but that appears to have been done in the direction away from piacenza, if i am reading the maps correctly. perhaps "10,000 under Sempronius maintained formation and fought their way out to the safety of Piacenza" could be replaced with "10,000 under Sempronius, who had fought their way out, maintained formation and retreated to Piacenza". dying (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- The important part is that Sempronius' force fought their way out of the Carthaginian encirclement, not what they subsequently did. Perhaps '10,000 under Sempronius maintained formation, fought their way out and reached the safety of Placenza'? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion
I'm sitting here trying to figure out which entries require my attention and feel a little lost. Can I suggest that the ones which are resolved henceforth be hatted? Similarly those where the date has passed or the venue has moved over to WP:ERRORS.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I put a tick in the title line - see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. A tick can readily be removed if a discussion is subsequently reopened. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since there's no table of contents, hatting would be easier on the eye when scanning. Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Has anyone created a button that unhides everything on a page that's been hatted? If not, and if some day I remember that I've seen a comment on one of these pages but I don't remember the precise wording (so I can't search for it), then I would have to pull up edit screens and read wikicode or unhat everything one at a time until I find it. So ... not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- What about collapsing? That is easily done and undone. Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, are you thinking of collapsing each day individually or using one or just a few collapseboxes? (If just a few, I might add ticks, say, during the week, and then put the whole week in one collapsebox.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just making suggestions and seeing what is practical. Personally, I'd prefer hatting. Then I only have to scroll down to see what isn't hatted. Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, i'd be happy to follow whatever works best for you. i'll try collapsing each day separately so that others can raise a point about a previously addressed blurb without feeling like the discussion on blurbs in the collapsed section has already closed. since {{hidden archive top}} appears to have been designed for use by uninvolved editors to close a discussion, i'll use {{collapse top}} instead. (admittedly, {{collapse top}} also says that it should be used by uninvolved editors, but i can't seem to find a more appropriate template.) to be clear, anyone can feel free to revert my collapsing; i am only doing so to make it easier to determine what may need attention, not to close a discussion.also, Wehwalt, if you think you'd prefer to collapse multiple sections into one box, or have any other ideas you wish to try out, please feel free to restructure my edits in order to do so. by the way, i see a table of contents immediately below the scheduling table, but i don't know if your preferences are set up to not display it.Dank, i generally don't use javascript, so for an embarrassingly long time, i had thought that hatting a conversation simply placed a border around it, suggesting to others that they should avoid continuing the conversation. i had no clue it actually collapsed the enclosed text. continuing that idea, i am guessing that a quick way to expand all collapsed conversations on a page is to turn off javascript and reload the page. dying (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just making suggestions and seeing what is practical. Personally, I'd prefer hatting. Then I only have to scroll down to see what isn't hatted. Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, are you thinking of collapsing each day individually or using one or just a few collapseboxes? (If just a few, I might add ticks, say, during the week, and then put the whole week in one collapsebox.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- What about collapsing? That is easily done and undone. Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Has anyone created a button that unhides everything on a page that's been hatted? If not, and if some day I remember that I've seen a comment on one of these pages but I don't remember the precise wording (so I can't search for it), then I would have to pull up edit screens and read wikicode or unhat everything one at a time until I find it. So ... not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since there's no table of contents, hatting would be easier on the eye when scanning. Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
yes, virginia, there is a santa claus
i had two questions about this blurb.
- the article states that "The Sun started reprinting the editorial annually at Christmas after 1924". does this mean that the annual republication only began in 1925?
- was o'hanlon's original letter actually first published in 1897? i know the text of the letter was published in 1897, but i am currently unable to find a publication of the letter itself before 1997, when it appeared on antiques roadshow. i don't know enough about u.s. copyright law to determine if publication of the text of the letter in 1897 means that the letter itself is also in the public domain, so i thought i might raise the issue here.
dying (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm working on a rewrite. I'm not happy with the lead. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Eddie891, you probably know this, but if you make "substantial" changes to a FA it is good etiquette to ping in all of the FAC reviewers. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild, just was referring to revising the lead, not the whole article. Didn't think that was substantial, though if someone disagrees by all means let me know. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Eddie891, you probably know this, but if you make "substantial" changes to a FA it is good etiquette to ping in all of the FAC reviewers. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Either way-- if it was created in 1887 and published 1997 or published in 1897 it's in the public domain. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- but it's not a great scan. Maybe we could just use some seasonal image? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd prefer for the blurb image to have direct relevance to the article. Sure, we can have a 19th century rendering of Santa Claus but I'd say the letter is more relevant. How about cropping the image of the printed version in the Sun to show a few key lines, I would suggest starting with "Yes, Virginia ..." through "... if there were no Santa Claus". Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)