Misplaced Pages

:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:55, 10 September 2013 editBencherlite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users65,622 edits →Whaam!: hat← Previous edit Revision as of 20:47, 10 September 2013 edit undoTonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,870 edits →Whaam!: sorry to go thereNext edit →
Line 240: Line 240:


'''Comment''': After nearly 700k of contentiously stirring the manure over the course of two FACs for ''Whaam!'', Bus Stop is now not only displaying the same exasperating, exhausting filibuster tactics to sabotage the discussion here, but has upped the ante by accusing the multiple editors who came to a consensus on the article of ]. I'm very tempted to drag Bus Stop to ANI—can anybody give me a reason not to? ]&nbsp;(]) 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC) '''Comment''': After nearly 700k of contentiously stirring the manure over the course of two FACs for ''Whaam!'', Bus Stop is now not only displaying the same exasperating, exhausting filibuster tactics to sabotage the discussion here, but has upped the ante by accusing the multiple editors who came to a consensus on the article of ]. I'm very tempted to drag Bus Stop to ANI—can anybody give me a reason not to? ]&nbsp;(]) 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Query''' After having slept on my thoughts, I am now curious about whether it is rational that a person who has expressed an interest in helping select the best content for the main page to be upset at receiving a notification that a significantly higher point article than one that they have supported is available for consideration. Wouldn't the normal editor say, hey I may or may not change my mind, but thanks for letting me know about the significant change in circumstances?--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC) *'''Query''' After having slept on my thoughts, I am now curious about whether it is rational that a person who has expressed an interest in helping select the best content for the main page <s>to</s> be upset at receiving a notification that a significantly higher point article than one that they have supported is available for consideration. Wouldn't the normal editor say, hey I may or may not change my mind, but thanks for letting me know about the significant change in circumstances?--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
**{{u|Crisco 1492}}, next time you want to convince me through ] that you should have to have proof to call people racists think about this kind of craziness (referring to my 13:03, 10 September 2013 above). A little thanks would be appreciated next time. #learnsomemanners #evenifthemessangerisblack #bobbleheadsatWPmakemesick.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 20:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


Revision as of 20:47, 10 September 2013

↓↓Skip to nominations

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank, Gog the Mild and SchroCat, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I. Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II. Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III. Write the blurb. Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV. Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from March 1 to March 31.

Date Article Points Notes Supports Opposes
Nonspecific 1 Hyderabad, India 5 In the history of Hyderabad, most of the important events happened in the month of September. 3 0
Nonspecific 2 H. C. McNeile 10 0
Nonspecific 3
Nonspecific 4
September 25 Freedom for the Thought That We Hate 4 Anniversary of date that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by 1st United States Congress 2 0
September 28 Whaam! 5 50th Anniversary of 1st Exhibition, No art 2 6
September 29 Rise of Neville Chamberlain 4 75th anniversary of Munich 4 0
September 30 Les pêcheurs de perles 5 150th anniversary of premiere 4 0

Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

Charminar Hyderabad is the capital and largest city of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Occupying 650 square kilometres (250 sq mi) on the banks of the Musi River, it had a population of 6.8 million in 2011 with a metropolitan population of 7.75 million. Established in 1591 CE by Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah, Hyderabad remained under the rule of the Qutb Shahi dynasty until 1687, when the city became part of the Mughal empire. In 1724, Asif Jah I, a Mughal viceroy, declared his sovereignty and formed the Asif Jahi dynasty, also known as the Nizams of Hyderabad. The Nizams ruled the princely state of Hyderabad in a subsidiary alliance with the British Raj for more than two centuries. In 1948, the Nizam signed an Instrument of Accession with the Indian Union. Historically, Hyderabad was known for its pearl and diamond trading centres. Industrialisation attracted major Indian manufacturing, research and financial institutions to the city, while the formation of an information technology Special Economic Zone by the state agencies attracted global and Indian companies to set up operations. The Telugu film industry is based in Hyderabad. Places of interest include Chowmahalla Palace, Charminar and Golkonda fort. Hyderabad has several museums such as Salar Jung Museum, Nizam Museum, and AP State Archaeology Museum as well as bazaars such as Laad Bazaar, Madina Circle, Begum Bazaar and Sultan Bazaar. Hyderabadi biriyani and Hyderabadi haleem are examples of the distinctive culinary products of the city. (Full article...)

4 points for a geography vital article and 1 point for nominator being a major contributor who do not have any FA appearing in main page. Total points = 5.

In the history of Hyderabad, most of the important events happened in the month of September, and I wish along with WP main page appearance it will record one more hisotrical event. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dwaipayanc: I've responded below. -- tariqabjotu 05:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral We haven't had a city article in a long time, and this is certainly an interesting and important city. However, I feel the lead of the article is quite poor. Your proposed blurb (which is the whole of the article's lead) is very long for the TFA slot on the Main Page, but quite short -- and imbalanced -- as an introduction to a city article. It gives a good sense of the history of the city, but little sense of the city's culture (beyond the fact that the film industry is based there). Some of the sentences come across a bit choppy, and a list of places of interest and museums shouldn't be included in the lead (and, preferably, not anywhere else in the article without some explanation of the sites mentioned).
Going back to the history, I spotted the following sentence:

The Nizams ruled the princely state of Hyderabad in a subsidiary alliance with the British Raj for more than two centuries.

This doesn't seem to be correct. The British Raj is generally considered to begin around 1858, so it's best not to use that term to refer to British rule prior to then. Also, Hyderabad didn't become a princely state until 1798, seventy-four years after the State of Hyderabad was established. Even if you were to refer to pre-1858 British rule as the British Raj (and please don't), that would only be 150 years, not two centuries of rule.
The lead also includes the following sentence:

Between 1948 and 1956, Hyderabad city was the capital of the Hyderabad State.

This is very confusing, as one would expect this sentence to be talking about the Hyderabad State that existed for the 220 years prior to this one, and which had its capital in the city of Hyderabad for nearly two centuries.
Thankfully, the issues with the lead don't seem to extend to the body. Unfortunately, though, if the lead is poor, it's unlikely people are going to move on to read the rest of the article. (It's a shame this wasn't spotted during the FAC process, but it happens.)
Anyway, I tried coming up with another blurb based on the lead provided. (I half-wrote this earlier, before your rewrite, then came back to it later.) I feel this cuts out some of the unnecessary detail for the Main Page, highlights some more relevant and interesting points, and, ultimately, comes across as more engaging. (I apologize if my American English managed to creep in to the suggested blurb.) I believe it's 1198 characters.

Hyderabad is the capital and largest city of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Located along the Musi River, Hyderabad has a population of 6.8 million, making it the fourth-largest city in India. Established in 1591, Hyderabad was ruled by the Qutb Shahis for a century before falling under Mughal rule. In 1724, Mughal viceroy Asif Jah I created his own dynasty of nizams by establishing the State of Hyderabad, which ultimately became a princely state based in the city under the British. Relics of Qutb Shahi and Nizam rule remain visible today, with the Charminar (pictured)—dating from the city's founding—coming to symbolise Hyderabad. That legacy is also evident in the city's distinctive cuisine, which includes Hyderabadi biriyani and Hyderabadi haleem. Hyderabad has historically been known as a pearl and diamond trading centre, but today, due to the Telugu film industry, it is the country's second-largest producer of motion pictures. The formation of an infotech special economic zone has attracted firms from around the world, while the emergence of biotech industries in the 1990s has led to the title "Genome Valley" alongside the city's traditional status as the City of Pearls.

Just a suggestion. If you're curious why I excised some points, feel free to ask.
Part of the reason I'm neutral on this (rather than outright opposing) is that I may be nit-picking, owing to my own experiences writing a couple city articles. But I do really feel the lead needs to be improved to give that star first impression (and I'd be happy to help). As a new featured article, and with no particular anniversary you're shooting for, I feel there's no reason this can't be addressed first. -- tariqabjotu 05:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Tariqabjotu, I absolutely like your blurb, except for a point detailed below. Even though I am not the primary contributor to the article, I would rather have you edit the lead of the article for betterment. Please go ahead, and make changes. We can definitely wait, there is no deadline here!
The sentence that I have some disagreement with in your proposed blurb is " Hyderabad has historically been known as a pearl and diamond trading centre, but today, due to the Telugu film industry, it is the country's second-largest producer of motion pictures.". The Telugu cinema industry, although very large, is not perhaps weighty enough to contrast with the historical pearl and diamond trading. I mean, those trading were probably a major livelihood of the people at some historical time, and teh city was well-known for that. But at present, the film industry does not carry comparable weight for the livelihood of the citizens or the notability of the city. So, I think they somehow would better fit in a non-contrasted construction, probably in two separate sentences. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion: Support the revised blurb of User:Tariqabjotu mean while I support the idea of Dwaipayanc about trimming the point of Telugu film industry. Though I am not much experienced in TFA blurb, would like to suggest if we can include Bazaars part as it is a notable feature of Hyderabad's traditional culture. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Dwaipayanc: I'd be happy to help out with the lead, but later this week. As for the blurb here, how about splitting up the sentence as follows: "Hyderabad has historically been known as a pearl and diamond trading centre. Today, due to the Telugu film industry, it is also the country's second-largest producer of motion pictures." Or do you have an alternate suggestion? -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Tariqabjotu: Yes, these split sentences wor better And we'll await your edits in the lead. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

H. C. McNeile

Bulldog Drummond, McNeile's best-known character H. C. McNeile MC (1888–1937) was a British soldier and author best known for his series of Bulldog Drummond novels. McNeile started writing short war stories during the First World War; when these were published in the Daily Mail, they were under his penname, Sapper, which was based on that of his regiment, the Royal Engineers. After the war he left the Army and became a full-time writer, changing from writing war stories to thrillers, and from writing short stories to move increasingly to novels. In 1920 he published Bulldog Drummond, whose hero became his best-known creation: nine further Drummond novels followed, as did three plays and a screenplay. McNeile also wrote works that included two other protagonists, Jim Maitland and Ronald Standish and sales of his books ensured he was one of the most successful British popular authors of the inter-war period before his death in 1937 from throat cancer, which has been attributed to damage sustained from a gas attack in the war. Although seen by his contemporaries as an "upstanding Tory", his work came under criticism after the Second World War for its fascist overtones, xenophobia and anti-semitism. (Full article...)

2 points for his 125th birthday (I presume we've had another author on the front page in the last three months).

  • Tony, this has nothing to do with the McNeile article. Thanks also for the chortle over Kafka: I suspect you may be the first person in history to have compared McNeile and Kafka! - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, I appreciate you would like your article to be on the front page on that day, but opposing another article simply because it stands in your way does not seem to be the best way to approach it. You will get your chance to vote on Waam! when your article reaches FA. Could I suggest you strike your oppose and leave it as a comment to advise others instead? - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I support on the basis of the merits of an individual nomination, and oppose because a nomination (or article) is poor or problematic, rather than as a mechanism to promote one over another. To support one article and oppose another for the same date is double voting, imo. If there are problems with the above text or the article then I'd be happy to deal with the reasons behind it, but I really don't want to go down the route of a tit-for-tat oppose simply to force my opinion: I'll listen to the wider community in a straight comparison. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering Whaam! has not passed, and is not nominated, there is no grounds for oppose (as done above) in the rules. It allows for direct competition based on points, and right now Whaam! has zero points (after all, it's not an FA). If it passes by the time the date rolls around, nominate it. Otherwise, this oppose is going to be seen as "if I can't have it, you can't have it". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Support I'd be happy to see this as TFA on that date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support – Yes, absolutely. This is a perfect choice and I see no better for TFA on this date. -- Cassianto 00:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - Solid article on notable author. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly none of the man himself, but I've attached a cover of his best-known work: does this cut the mustard, or is it a little too far off the subject? - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep - now added a line about his changing career and writing focus after the war - it's at 1138, so a little more to play with if needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Following rather inappropriate talk page postings regarding an alternate nomination for the 28 September date, this nom has now been moved to a non-specific date. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 3

Nonspecific date 4

Specific date nominations

September 25

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is a 2007 non-fiction book by Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lewis discusses key free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). The book's title is drawn from the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (pictured) in United States v. Schwimmer, who wrote: "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The book was positively received by The New York Times, Harvard Magazine, Nat Hentoff, two National Book Critics Circle members, and Kirkus Reviews. Jeremy Waldron criticized the work in The New York Review of Books and elaborated on this in The Harm in Hate Speech (2012). This prompted a critical analysis of both works in The New York Review of Books by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (Full article...)

Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, as nom. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support appearance, Oppose weak oppose re proposed date. This seems like a good choice for appearance, but I'd quibble about the date. The oppose vote in the prior discussion suggested delaying the appearance until 2014, on a 5-year anniversary date. I don't think I would go that far, but I think there ought to be consideration of whether to place it on a September 25 date (anniversary of the 1789 submission of the joint congressional resolution containing 12 proposed amendments to the States for ratification), a December 15 date (anniversary of the 1791 adoption of the United States Bill of Rights by ratification of 10 of the 12 proposed amendments by the state of Virginia, or a March 1 date (anniversary of the 1792 official certification of the adoption). As I understand Article Five of the United States Constitution, the proposed amendments became "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States". Based on this, I think that a December 15 appearance date is more appropriate than September 25. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your rationale and explanation, Wtmitchell. I just don't think it is of such weight that it warrants an oppose for this particular date. And I am of course disappointed by that. I hope that you will reconsider your thoughts on this. It is an important subject related to freedom of speech, and readers can only benefit from being exposed to educational material about this encyclopedic topic, regardless of what particular date it happens to appear on the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Responding to your comments above and here on my talk page. I've changed the "oppose" part of my response above to "weak oppose", not so much in reaction to your points but, having looked at this video, I get the impression that the focus of the book which is the subject of the article is more on the judicial interpretation by SCOTUS from c. 1919 onward of the 1st Amendment than on its proposal or adoption. From the video, the book appears to be less about the birth of the 1st Amendment than about its judicial adolescence. I disclaim that I'm not legally trained and that I have not read the book, though I have ordered a copy after becoming aware of it through this discussion. Because of imperfect postal service to my location, it's not certain that I will receive the book copy I've ordered, and it'll take several months to reach me if I do receive it. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Thanks very much, I am so glad that this discussion stimulated you to wish to read the book itself! I hope that it arrives safely in your possession soon. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@Cirt: the blurb currently displays at 1,455 characters; please trim it to a max of 1,200 including spaces. Thanks. Bencherlite 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
@Bencherlite:, Done. I've gone ahead and trimmed the blurb to 1,200 including spaces. Thank you for pointing this out, — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

September 28

Alternate September 28

Whaam!

Whaam!, Roy Lichtenstein's most famous painting Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. One of the best-known works of pop art, it is among Lichtenstein's most important paintings. Whaam! was first exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the Tate Gallery, London, in 1966. It has been on permanent display at Tate Modern since 2006. The left-hand panel of Whaam! shows a fighter plane shooting a missile. The right-hand panel depicts the missile hitting its target, a second plane, which explodes into flames. Lichtenstein based the image on elements taken from several comic-book panels. He transformed his primary prototype, a panel from a 1962 war comic book, by dividing the composition into two panels and altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements. Whaam! is regarded for the temporal, spatial and psychological integration of its two panels, which Lichtenstein conceived as a contrasting pair. The painting's title is displayed in the large onomatopoeia in the right panel. Lichtenstein studied as an artist before and after serving in the United States Army during World War II. He practiced anti-aircraft drills during basic training; the program was later canceled as he was training to be a pilot. He depicted aerial combat in several works. (Full article...)
  • Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose—I do not doubt the enthusiasm of the nominator, but his actions regarding this nomination at canvassing supporters of another nomination for this date leaves me to oppose this. Sorry Tony, but postings like this one when followed by this one, and a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth (I could continue posting links, but I counted 16 notifications, all pointing out that he had a nomination with more points) plus notifications to one, two, three and four separate WikiProjects. All of this after the wall of text posted just a few days ago at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2#Whammy on the Whaam! 50th anniversary drive that strikes me as an attempt to intimidate or game the system. Sorry, although it punishes others who helped, Tony's actions here can't go rewarded. Imzadi 1979 → 08:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imzadi1979. This kind of thing really isn't on. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for 28 September where I would like to see H. C. McNeile, support this one for one of the other days of the exhibition which ran trough 24 October. 28 September was not the birthday of this piece of art. - I think we need to say in the blurb that the image pictures only part of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for 28 September, but support for any other relevent date. I too was informed by Tony of this nomination, and agree that his words could have been better given. However, I thank him for this as I do not keep TFAR on my watchlist so would therefore not of known of its nomination. -- Cassianto 10:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Would someone teach these McNeile people that a notification that there are now two choices is not CANVASSing unless it includes a directive on which way to vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Tony, whilst I commend you on improving the tone of your posts, I must say that your notifications were still not quite neutral: your posts clearly indicated your position (especially once clicked through to here) and make it seem as if the points are the only thing that matters. I understand how some would consider that canvassing (especially since a lot of us watchlist this page) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral on this article, but prefer McNeile - 125th birthday is a more significant milestone, and I also have concerns about the nominator's multiple posts. The article should not suffer for this (hence no oppose vote) but I think McNeile would be better suited (and is, at the time, the clear community consensus). If, for some reason, the power that be who enjoys benchpressing light weights decides that McNeile is not to be run on the 28th, I have no opposition against this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I received a neutrally worded notification from Tony. I participated in the two FACs that were needed to get this article to FA, a process that was very contentious and drawn out. I have opposed Tony as "director" of the WP:FOUR award but this is a different question here. I think a 50th anniversary is more prominent than 125th. I don't think McNeile will be poorly served by waiting until some other particular date such as the 100th anniversary of his death which will be 14 August 2037. Whatever Tony's faults, I don't think the Whaam! article should take the punishment for them. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this is a poor article in many ways but I've been unable to have much input due to WP:OWNERSHIP issues at the two FACs. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with sentiment regarding Tony's approach to this. Even after the criticism he has received, he made a comment in this request that began with "Would someone teach these McNeile people..." Yeah, it's a definite no from me. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Various comments / conversations of decreasing relevance to the purpose of this page. And I'm not saying that all the comments outside this box are relevant... Bencherlite 13:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I reminded Tony of his comment which seems to have been ignored. I don't want to turn this into a bitch fest, but I felt it proper to respond to the "Would someone teach these McNeile people..." comment (seeing as I am one apparently). -- Cassianto 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the nominator feels there to be "factions" of editors. He is referring to comics people and visual arts people.
"The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments."
"Very good to have a strong opinion about the content from a non-WP:WPVA and non-WP:COMICS person."
"Please don't disrupt the delicate balance of the article. Unless you can get both one COMICS guy and one WPVA guy to agree with your change or two of the neutral guys, just leave things alone."
This is a method of analysis that may have relevance, but is it productive? The sole determinant of what gets into an article should be what is good for the article. That has to be the bottom line. We are using Talk pages (or FAC pages) to improve the article. "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." (WP:TPG) Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Cassianto and Bus stop, Is McNeile people derogatory? defamotory? insulting? Is WP:COMICS discussant derogatory? defamotory? insulting? I'll hold my tongue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not, but rude yes. -- Cassianto 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger—the distinction between comics people and visual arts people is largely irrelevant. It is not productive. We should put blinders on and look at the merits of that which is being proposed for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In the case of the two FACs there were several neutral parties who were unaware that the contentious attitudes during the discussions were largely driven by the fact that WP:COMICS and WP:WPVA have two very different views on Roy Lichtenstein. Trying to keep things moving, it was best to let them know what was going.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger—you mention the "two very different views on Roy Lichtenstein". Is this very different from the "two very different views" on anything else on Misplaced Pages with which editors must contend? We have policy language basically telling us to provide representation for both views. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: After nearly 700k of contentiously stirring the manure over the course of two FACs for Whaam!, Bus Stop is now not only displaying the same exasperating, exhausting filibuster tactics to sabotage the discussion here, but has upped the ante by accusing the multiple editors who came to a consensus on the article of WP:OWNERSHIP. I'm very tempted to drag Bus Stop to ANI—can anybody give me a reason not to? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Query After having slept on my thoughts, I am now curious about whether it is rational that a person who has expressed an interest in helping select the best content for the main page to be upset at receiving a notification that a significantly higher point article than one that they have supported is available for consideration. Wouldn't the normal editor say, hey I may or may not change my mind, but thanks for letting me know about the significant change in circumstances?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

September 29

Rise of Neville Chamberlain

Chamberlain in 1938 The early life and career of rise of Neville Chamberlain culminated on 28 May 1937, when he was summoned to Buckingham Palace to "kiss hands" and accept the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Chamberlain was born in 1869; his father was the politician Joseph Chamberlain. After a period in a firm of chartered accountants, Neville Chamberlain spent six years in the Bahamas managing a sisal plantation in a failed attempt to recoup the family fortunes. After returning to England in 1897, he became a successful businessman, and Lord Mayor, in his home city of Birmingham. He was elected to the House of Commons aged 49. After four years on the backbenches, he saw rapid promotion, briefly becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer after less than a year as a minister. He subsequently spent five years as Minister of Health, securing the passage of many reforming acts. After two years in opposition, he became part of Ramsey MacDonald's National Government, and spent five and a half years as Chancellor. Chamberlain had long been regarded as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's political heir, and when Baldwin announced his retirement, Chamberlain was seen as the only possible successor. (Full article...)
Four points, two for 75th anniversary of the Munich Conference, two for two-year FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The main article was used for the 70th anniversary of his resignation. It's what we got.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

September 30

Les pêcheurs de perles

The Pearl Fishers, with Caruso, in 1916

Les pêcheurs de perles (The Pearl Fishers) is an opera by the French composer Georges Bizet, with a libretto by Eugène Cormon and Michel Carré, first performed on 30 September 1863 at the Théâtre Lyrique in Paris. Set in ancient Ceylon, the opera tells how two men's vow of eternal friendship is threatened by their love for a woman, who is herself conflicted between secular love and her sacred oath as a priestess. The duet "Au fond du temple saint", generally known as "The Pearl Fishers Duet", is one of the best-known numbers in Western opera. Although well received by the public and by other composers, notably Hector Berlioz, initial press reaction to the work was generally hostile. Though not revived in Bizet's lifetime, the opera became popular in Europe and America, and eventually bcame a staple the repertory of opera houses worldwide. The loss of Bizet's original score meant that, until the 1970s, productions were based on versions with significant departures from the original; recently, efforts have been made to reconstruct the score in accordance with Bizet's intentions. Modern critics have detected premonitions of the composer's genius which would culminate, 10 years later, in Carmen.

(Full article...)
150th anniversary of the premiere, 2 points, 1 year FA, 1 point, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Categories: