Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 8 January 2013

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am one of the small team that chooses which Featured Article is going to be "Today's Featured Article" on the main page. If you have a query about a TFA that has already been picked, please ask away; if you have a query about a TFA that you'd like to be picked, or the TFA selection process , I'll do my best to help (although I may end up referring you to someone or somewhere else, depending on the question). I have limited time to edit Misplaced Pages at weekends, so for anything urgent then you'll need to go somewhere else, such as User talk:Raul654 (the FA director) and / or WT:TFAR.

Please do not leave talkback templates unless more than a day has gone by since my last comment/message and I've not commented/replied in the meantime. I have a watchlist and know how to use it. If you've replied to a message I've left somewhere, chances are that I'll notice, and reply if it's worth doing so

Request

Hi Bencherlite, I'd like to request that this thread on the TFAR talk be archived. Not nice stuff and would like to see it disappear. If you think there's a reason to keep maybe the discussion could be re-opened on a new thread. Best wishes for the new year. Love the pic of the lovely snow covered Welsh mountains on your user page btw - very nice! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us a clear slate. Have another one for you: I've asked before that discussions regarding noms be allowed to archive and let alone because at least once they've been copied over to another page. I see this happening again here. What's your feeling about this? Personally I don't think we need to air the dirty laundry again and again. Can find diffs for previous requests and where the discussions were moved if you need them. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I had just hat/habbed that before I saw this discussion ... I don't understand why it's there at all, but defer to Bencherlite if he prefers to do something else. Poor TFAR, The Neverending Story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul for TFA on January 12

I must say I'm quite surprised to see Istanbul selected as TFA on January 12. I thought it was standard that the FA nominator was at least notified of an article's pending selection. And, I'm surprised this was selected so soon, given it has been less than three months since the TFA. There are certainly far more notable dates in relationship to Istanbul, such as May 29 (when the city was conquered in 1453) or related to Istanbul's potential selection as host of the 2020 Olympics. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As I selected the article directly to appear as TFA without a prior request at WP:TFAR, there was nothing of which you should have been notified earlier. (Most TFAs are in fact selected directly by Raul or one of his TFA delegates rather than being nominated first.) Notification on FAC nominator talk pages (and those of other leading editors) that a particular article has been selected as the TFA is handled by User:UcuchaBot (BRFA). I add the |maindate= to the talk page as I have the page open anyway. There is no rule that articles have to wait for x months or years before being selected as TFA - in fact, there are advantages in selecting articles that have relatively recently passed FAC because they are less likely to have deteriorated since promotion and are more likely to have active editors keeping an eye on them). Nor is every TFA date-related – some are, but many are not. I simply selected Istanbul because it was a recent FA on an interesting topic that would help give a better range of topics at TFA in January; if you would rather I scheduled something else with a view to an appearance at a later date, that's fine by me. But there are no guarantees that it would appear on 29th May, or that it would be possible to select it around the time of the 2020 decision. Regards, Bencherlite 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for swapping it out, but between zero chance of date relevance and some chance of date relevance, I'd choose the latter, especially as there are so many dates relevant to Istanbul (e.g. May 29) and, perhaps more importantly, the city has a good chance of winning its bid for the Olympics this September (which would generate more direct relevance). After then, I probably wouldn't care. This is a very stable article, especially for an article of this size and importance, so I don't think you'd have to worry about deterioration. I'm aware it's ultimately your decision, so consider my input as you like. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Feb 14

Nice idea if we can't come up with anything better, but how many points would (the equal to both sexes!) Romances get if its FA nominator supported the idea? --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding that nomination in an obvious bid to kick my nomination out was, for want of a better word, dickish. Shameful. Prioryman (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

TFAR issue

You may or may not have noticed, but an editor alleged that I cannot schedule or decline that editor's submissions at TFA. I think this needs to be resolved before the situation reappears. I have some views, but I would like to hear yours first. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may ... there is no basis for such a claim. He made a similar claim once when I promoted one of his articles, so I actually had to unpromote an FA, if you can imagine that ... bizarre is the best word I can use to describe that! I can't recall correctly if he backed down on that, but I suspect he did ... not sure. Anyway, your job as delegate is to gauge consensus, which occasionally requires that you overrule consensus. You should only have to recuse if you are overruling consensus-- not acting with consensus. Someone can't come along and say, you can't promote my FAC or TFA with consensus, or archive it with consensus, just because you and I have had past differences. That would open the door for everyone to stir the pot so delegates can't act on consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see it as having merit. Even assuming for sake of argument that there is something between that user and Raul, that only involves Raul. If my interactions with this user are such as to prevent scheduling TFA, then so are Bencherlite's, leaving only Dabamb as possibly being able to schedule any of these. (And possibly not even that, since Dabamb was also appointed by Raul.) That doesn't seem workable. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Other issues: I think we should coordinate scheduling holidays and other significant days. It would probably make sense to do that at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Delegates. The one coming up that directly concerns me is Feb 14, for which I object to scheduling the Museum article. I'm not opposed to some other day, but not that day. So if we disagree on that, we should work it out now. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lugo's Law

Nice essay. BTW, it was only meta-proven... check out the rook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod's edits

I respectfully disagree that Johnbod's edits were not deliberate vandalism. He initially advised me to use a separate paragraph for the Manuscript entitled The Three Marys Manuscriipt. I complied. He reverted because "he did not like it" - a frequent occurence for him, and reduced it to a sentence using the French term which is not advised on English[REDACTED] as you know. He also deliberately edited in a manner as to make it difficult for me to change back to the separate paragraph (which he advised in the first place!). He also then followed my contributions (as his contribs clearly show) to Jean de Venette and did the same. He also had the pic of the manuscript showing where he indicated a fresco. That was clearly inaccurate. I simply moved the pic back to where the Manuscript paragraph was. I usually do not use the rollback feature on my own articles but my understanding is that am allowed if vandalism is clearly utilized for the editor's own purpose which is to frustrate and obstruct. Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After looking at the matter further I found a better use for the material. The (very predictable) description of what must be a much later manuscript copy (not findable by your reference) was not relevant at Three Marys. You are mistaken if you think the Lorenzo Monaco miniature (from a choirbook) is from a manuscript of the poem. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That reference was given to me by User:Doric Loon who has identifed himself as an expert in languages and medieval manuscripts as Professor Dr Raymond Graeme Dunphy at http://www.dunphy.de/ and an editor of the reference http://www.brill.com/publications/reference-works/encyclopedia-medieval-chronicle-2-vols which I correctly gave. The date of the manuscript is correct. This is the link for the most recent addition http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F. Mugginsx (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the French manuscript blog, which no doubt due to the strange layout of that site you can't locate now where you say. You don't see any problems with "The Three Marys or Maries is a long poem written circa 1357 by Jean de Venette in the form of a manuscript on vellum from the mid-fifteenth century,...."? I'll copy this to Talk:The Three Marys Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)