Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:17, 21 January 2025

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

January music

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. - Did you see Masilo talking and dancing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

History of Christianity

Look! Look, I got it under 11,000 words - barely - but still! I am learning from you. I will leave it alone now so you can copy and do your thing. You are almost done. I know you will be relieved when it's over, but I only get more and more impressed with you. I wish I could do something for you. It seems so inadequate to just keep saying thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

So, are you taking a short break, or have you decided you're done? If you are not done, the High and Late Middle Ages still need your magic touch. If you have hit the wall, then I thank you again for all you have done. It has made a huge difference and taught me a lot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Most definitely not done, but taking a WP break for a couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Praise God, Halelujah and Amen!! Take all the time you need. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Whoo hoo!! YAY!! You're back! I'm so glad. Truly. Will you go away again if I make comments on your changes? Perhaps I should just leave things till you are completely done and see what's what then? If you prefer to work without my input, I can understand that... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Now is fine Jenhawk777. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your patience is remarkable. Early Middle Ages: I made four small changes, and I have one question and two answers to your questions.

• My one question is whether or not to make it clear the early Middle Ages was the "Benedictine Age", as Cantor says: the age of the monk. That comes to an end in the High Middle Ages when their social utility declines and secular clergy rises. That later shift is important for the church, and for culture, and without including that monasticism was primary here in the early Middle Ages, it's hard to connect that its end mattered. Monks were "poor in spirit" (according to the Sermon on the mount) but monasteries had wealth in possessions; secular clergy coveted the monk's ancient wealth, and their influence, and since clergy had power and authority through the nobles they worked for, they were often successful in taking what they wanted. This pleased the nobles (who took their cut), devastated the later monasteries, and changed the church. But that's in the High Middle Ages. What to do?
• The Bible was not seen as authoritative in the Reformation sense anywhere at this time. However, the pope, church leaders and the church itself had authority. That provided justification for writing in the 800s and 900s a truly massive amount of hagiography - false stories of martyrs - and a bunch of straight-up forgeries on multiple topics including the Donation of Constantine. It seemed worth a mention.
• You asked, why Butler. It's a classic. Amazon says: "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." But there are other sources there as well, so no biggie. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, does the fourth crusade not merit a mention of its own? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am really happy with the Early Middle Ages. It is only 10 paragraphs, and it says the stuff I think is most important. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You clearly have way more patience than I - demonstrating yet again that you are not only a superior editor but a superior person. I bow in humility - but it doesn't keep me from nagging - I sure would like to finish this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to do this without you but I'm afraid I have totally F***ed up the High Middle Ages. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I'll perhaps be back tomorrow; busy with Israel-Hamas war now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I got a request for that article as well. I'm not doing anything else until I can get this one sorted properly. Then perhaps I can go back to my comfortable academic niche where I can use lots of obscure details to write long complex sentences on topics no one else really cares about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not as bad as I first thought. It may be close to okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sunnya343, unless I am missing something, these RfCs are not directly connected, merely on related subjects? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, they are just about related subjects. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have done this on a large scale Sunnya343, I think it is inappropriate use of notifications. Please do not continue this behaviour. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did this on a large scale, though I did not want to appear to be canvassing. I apologize. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mentorship questions

Question from Anatungdim

Hi Sir, I have noticed there are many other low-code development platforms pages are not added. so how can add a page so it will list automatically in the listing? --Anatungdim (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Anatungdim, which listing are you referring to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Low-code_development_platform 2409:40D0:10C6:B01:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Juled~Pawz

How in the world do I creat an article --Juled~Pawz (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Juled~Pawz, please see Help:Your first article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Manjeet9200

how can i get my page on google search --Manjeet9200 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Manjeet9200, please see Help:Your first article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Secret History of the Mongols script

Hi AirshipJungleman, I was wondering if you had insight into an apparent contradiction in Secret History of the Mongols. The lead makes a point that the book was originally written in the Mongolian script, but then says the earliest known version is in Chinese characters. The body never explains it. I assume that the existence of the phonetic Chinese text alongside a Chinese translation means that historians assume it was transcribed from Mongolian, but if so the body should state this. Alternatively or perhaps additionally, maybe the other partial copies that have survived were written in the Mongolian script, but the article does not say this either. Finally, say the article does explain it, is it a significant fact worth presenting with such prominence disconnected from other information about the texts in the lead? Best, CMD (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis, the body does cover it, but not very clearly, in the "Hanlin Academy text" subsection. I intend to rewrite the article in the near future; will let you know when I do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The Hanlin Academy text explains that it was found in Chinese (although as you note, not that well), but it doesn't explain why it is thought "the original" was in the Mongol script. Does the Hanlin Academy text say this, or is it assumed? Minor questions abound. Glad to hear you are thinking of looking into it. I should probably fully read it at some point. CMD (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that the body does not explicitly say it was written in the Mongol script, but that is a basic assumption and an understandable oversight. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The confusion is thus why it is very prominently mentioned in the lead, if it is a basic assumption. It is this prominence that raised the questions in my mind. CMD (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Good timing, I'm starting the rewrite now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Timur

I'm at work and don't have time to put together a post at the 3RR noticeboard but I'd suggest doing that rather than any further reverts -- you must be getting close to 3RR yourself and that's a bright line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Already done and blocked Mike Christie. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		You deserve this barnstar for your contributions to Israel-Hamas War. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		You deserve more than one barnstar for your summarising and trimming of Israel–Hamas war, genuinely incredible work. CNC (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I remember summarising previous sections when the article was around 21,000 words, so I can relate to how time-consuming it is do this, and the concentration required etc, especially to avoid any accusations of POV summarising etc. I also hope you didn't take offence to any of my edit summary comments such as "remains hideously too big", or temporarily downgrading rating to C class; I was only intended to show support and to motivate you to carry on your good work, while hoping that other editors would back-off from trying to re-insert unnecessary content.

With that said, how do you feel about taking on summarising Other confrontations section per talkpage survey? For reference I requested formal closure at closure requests, but if you still have energy it'd be a great to get it done already while you're head-deep in the article. I'm happy to make an involved close based on obvious consensus (not that it even needs it) if you are willing to perform summarising? Compared to what you've already done it doesn't seem like too much work, and personally it seems like that section should only have two sub-sections; West Bank and Israel followed by Middle East conflict, per survey consensus. The focus on Iran is simply undue imo, while American involvement is a misplaced new addition it seems. For example "2024 Iran–Israel conflict" has effectively become a child article of "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)", so doesn't require a child article summary, only a wikilink sentence reference within a summary of MEC, if that makes any sense? Anyway, that's my opinion, and I clearly don't need to school you on what a child article summary should look like. CNC (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

On 6 January 2025, an editor by former name Unbandito carried out the split of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon sections from Israel-Hamas page to Middle Eastern Crisis page. Article size decreased 70K from 550K to 480K, and the other page got an increase of 33K, I don't know the reason of the big gap (70K vs 33K) except a guess that a lot of paragraphs were deemed to be duplicate, and I don't know how careful the edits were. However, some summary on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon should have been left in Israel-Hamas page. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, I hadn't noticed to be honest aside from the reduced content there, and didn't see a mention on the talkpage. Adding only around 50% of the content to MEC sounds about right, as most of the content was duplicated. I remember looking at doing it myself and thought it looked like a nightmare, due to the nature of the duplication that had occurred overtime, and as I'm not as familiar with the other conflicts. As for "summary on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon", for whatever reason Iran was left, whereas as described above there should just be a summary of MEC with the countries you reference (that includes Iran). There is only one line that has any relevance for a summary in Israel-Hamas war, and that's the assassination of the Hamas leader, the rest is completely irrelevant. It's just an example of "other wars exist in the Middle East and may or may not be related to this subject", which is exactly why there is a standalone article for this. Also by lacking the necessary subject context, it looks like OR to be honest, I can only hope it's not and the sources relate to the war given the content doesn't. I should just move Iran to MEC per consensus, as that doesn't seem too complicated, but I've became too demoralised to do so, and also it would be better being replaced with MEC summary rather than reduce to one sentence. Generally after reducing the size of the article last year, and seeing it grow so quickly again with content that 90% was not respecting summary style whatsoever, I don't want to end up disheartened again. Anyway, apologies for hijacking your talkpage AJ, as you can probably tell this article frustrates me and I should probably stay away for now. CNC (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a Middle Eastern Crisis summary would necessarily include the several countries, Israel-Hamas war was the casus belli for many of them, and direct cascade includes the fall of Assad, as covered in news. If we don't include this, I don't think we have much of a summary at all, but the consensus was to have a summary. I do hope this article won't balloon again, now that we have a ceasefire. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Pat Crerand

Hi, may I ask for your advice with anotherwise straightforward page move I cannot make due to an existing redirect? In summary, the redirect needs to come from "Pat Crerand" to "Paddy Crerand" and not the other way round: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pat_Crerand refers. Can you do the swap or tell me how to? Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Billsmith60 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

First GA nom

Hello. May I ask how long is the waiting time for GANs to be assessed by a reviewer? I have nominated mine (Sarah Geronimo) last year, as seen here (item number 26). ScarletViolet tc 12:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ScarletViolet, see WP:GAN/I#N3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Well done on your good work on many topics over the years. Andre🚐 20:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)