Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 2 November 2020

• WT:TFA

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

To notify all the TFA coordinators on any talk page, use {{@TFA}} in your message, and sign it.

Image size

@TFA coordinators We have a new template {{Main page image/TFA}} which automatically adjusts the image size (discussed at Talk:Main Page#Plan for implementation). Please start using it in August, if convenient. The format is very simple and does not require a |width=, which can be included if an override is desired.

{{Main page image/TFA|image= |caption= }}

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

See example at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/July 29, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll need to replace it in the auto loading thingie that sets up when we set up the TFA blurb page. Scheduling TFA is already tricky enough .. there are a LOT of steps to take and if you want us to use a new template, we'll need it to be simple - i.e. already loaded on the page, rather than one more step we'll need to remember. (I'm not kidding about a lot of steps - the directions I got from a former TFA scheduler fill both sides of a letter sized sheet. In contrast, the tasks that are required for ALL of promoting and arching actual FACs fit easily onto half a page: User:Ealdgyth/FAC tasks.) --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth in all particulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, me too, integrate rather than mwke us have to change something every time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already pre-loaded this. I guess what I really wanted was not to surprise you with a new template with no warning. I understand you already have a lot to contend with and that August may have blurbs that use either. I will clean-up everything as it comes through. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also pre-loaded it to the "create" link on the archive pages. Let me know if I missed something or you run into issues. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Qibla for 12 September

An indignant yet polite message posted to the help desk protests the inappropriateness of Qibla for 11 September 2019. Of course 12 September 2020 is what was meant; but as Joseph2302 has pointed out, the Qibla article would have been featured in the US for hours during 11 September.

Joseph2302 adds: "Also failing to see how running the Qibla article on 9/11 would be offensive anyway, as it's not in the slightest bit related to 9/11." While I cannot claim to read Joseph2302's mind, I speculate that he is a member of the reality-based community. Not everyone is: plenty of Americans and others have been encouraged by junk TV to fervidly attribute the September 11 attacks to Islam in general. Did the relatability (in some people's minds) on 11/12 September of Qibla to 9/11 occur to any of the four TFA coordinators? -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responsible for scheduling this month. That's where it came out when I put together the list, putting together different topics in a way that is hopefully varied to the community. I had looked at the article while it was at FAC, though it was promoted before I had a chance to review it. I felt the ship was a good article for 9/11. I did not give a lot of thought to the 12th, but don't think Qibla was inappropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

To expand a bit. No one had asked for either September 10, 11 or 12. I looked at the page we have of articles that haven't run yet that have date connections, saw ones I liked for September 10 and 11, scheduled them and (slightly later) removed them from the page, here. That left the 12th (the 13th had been requested). I saw no article I liked that had a September 12 connection and went to a list of articles recently promoted to FA that I had earlier noted as possibles to run in September. Qibla was next. (I had earlier run Tweed Courthouse for September 6, but I actually had reviewed that article for FAC, so I had listed it before Qibla). The only thought I had about Qibla was whether it clashed with September 1's article about a piece of religious music by Monteverdi. I decided they were very different, scheduled it for the 12th, and moved on. That's probably more than anyone wants to know about the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

To my mind, to feature it even in the vicinity of 9/11 is not to take into account Islamic sensitivities about that date, and I'm not Muslim, or even religious. It is not the fault of Wehwalt or the TFA people, though, but that of the nominator of the successful FAC (and it has little to do with reality-based this or that). He should have seen this, out of general awareness of nuances. As a referee of one of his FAC submissions, I remember him once insisting on including a picture of poems attributed to a Grenadan ruler. I asked him for a translation of a few portions of the text. My impression then was that he could not read Arabic with any facility, let alone (medieval) Andalusian Arabic. I had an expert read it, and he said the nominator was wide off the mark. He was simply using a Spanish source for a mechanical translation. I let it go, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: In what world is this even relevant to the topic at hand "As a referee of one of his FAC submissions, I remember him once insisting on including a picture of poems attributed to a Grenadan ruler. I asked him for a translation of a few portions of the text. My impression then was that he could not read Arabic with any facility, let alone (medieval) Andalusian Arabic. I had an expert read it, and he said the nominator was wide off the mark. He was simply using a Spanish source for a mechanical translation. I let it go, ..."? --In actu (Guerillero) 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@In actu: Probably not the world in which nominators rush from poor submission to poor submission in such a blind hurry that they cannot tell price from value. Shades of meaning, wider meanings, and sensitivity belong to value. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"To my mind, to feature it even in the vicinity of 9/11 is not to take into account Islamic sensitivities about that date" How so? FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for explaining. I still think that the timing was unfortunate, but I'm sure that if I were doing your job I'd make numerous inadvertent mis-choices. If Covid or some other catastrophe hasn't felled me by October '21, I'll try to remember to take a look at the list of coming attractions, and to express an opinion if I have one (an opinion with which others would of course be free to disagree). -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Comments are always welcome, that is why (except in the case an article needs to be replaced, usually because its principal contributors have another date in mind), I give everyone ten days notice of an article running and have the whole thing done a week before the end of the preceding month. In this case, the TFA blurb was publicly posted on August 22 and was edited by a number of people, but no one said anything about the timing. That being said, on the assumption I'm still handling the last month of each quarter next year, I think you can expect the 9/12 article to be uncontroversial by anyone's standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• My view on this is that the qibla article had no direct relevance to 9/11, and we shouldn't be lowering ourselves by not putting articles on dates that some conspiracy theorists would be offended by. So absolutely no issue for me running this article on 12 September- would be madness to put a blanket ban on anything vaguely related to Islam on 10-12 September every year, as that would just be letting the conspiracy theorists get their way. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Joseph2302, I think you are being melodramatic. Muslims and others are hardly "conspiracy theorists" for believing that Islamophobia is real. It's encouraged from high places (example). Misplaced Pages's avoidance of additionally priming it would not require "a blanket ban on anything vaguely related to Islam" for three days every year; instead, a minor shuffling around of anything very obviously related to Islam, where doing so would be easy. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Joseph2302: Just as if 3,000 Muslims had been killed by a Christian terrorist attack and you were running that article on Christmas? No direct relevance, of course, only a conspiracy theory. What are the chances that would happen, ever? Mainly though I'm writing to emphasize again: I'm in no way blaming Wehwalt for this. Month after month he does stalwart work (along with others) in organizing and streamlining a complex undertaking. It a measure of his commitment to the task that he has responded a number of times already in a matter in which the yoke of guilt is far from bearing down on his shoulders. As I said, there's the value and there's the price. FAC these days is chock full of past masters of the price. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Islamophobia is real, the people who blame all of Islam for 9/11 are the nonsense conspiracy theorists who in my opinion would be the people with an issue with this FA. And my personal opinion is that we shouldn't be doing anything because we might upset some 9/11 anti-Islam conspiracy theorists. If Muslims would be offended by us running an Islam hook on 9/11, then that's a different issue (and not the one I was alluding to). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 22, 2020

This one is scheduled, but doesn't have an image yet. Suggestions? The first image in the article might be okay, with a suitable crop. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While I'm here ... anyone have a suggestion for the image for Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 4, 2020? (There are several good options, I think, we just haven't picked anything yet.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Dank, the first image in the article James Humphreys (pornographer) is a fair use image. Are fair use images allowed in TFA section of the Main Page? —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I thought it was copyleft. No, they're not eligible. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A picture of the approximate site of one of his "establishments", then or now, would work for me, if we can find one. There may be one in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)