Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Br'er Rabbit (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 24 September 2012 (clean up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from March 1 to March 31.

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

Fertilisation of Orchids

Fertilisation of Orchids is a book by Charles Darwin published on 15 May 1862 under the full explanatory title On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. Darwin's previous book, On the Origin of Species, had briefly mentioned evolutionary interactions between insects and the plants they fertilised, and this new idea was explored in detail. Darwin tapped into a contemporary vogue for growing exotic orchids.

Influential book by Darwin. We missed the day of the 150th anniversary but could "catch" the year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—TFA blurbs are supposed to be a single paragraph of roughly 1200 characters or fewer. The blurb needs to be revised to conform to those and other requirements before I can consider it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Those “instructions” are mere suggestions. Conformity is *not* required. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  This is a just first suggestion, by no means final, to give an idea of what is suggested. Typically the author knows better what to stress and what to drop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

Nonspecific date 3

Ace Books

early publisher of science fiction, founded in 1952 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

...About the time that Authentic Science Fiction was founded, which was TFA on 3rd September. Too soon for another TFA on the same theme. Oppose. Bencherlite 06:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—per Bencherlite. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  It should run this year, for the 60th anniversary. December? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 4

Nonspecific date 5

Monadnock Building

Looks different to me, and singular. The blurb is too long, I will call the author's attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• A Fine Example. There's is still a dead link that needs tending; might be in teh wayback machine. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  dealt w/it… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  This is date relevant on both November 14 and November 20. Why not wait for one of those dates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see those dates as rather trivial; they're just the dates of NRHP and CL status, which would be committees and paperwork. I'm no fan of much of the "date relevance" for insignificant dates (of course, I think in base 2;). That said, I'd not fuss with date-tagging this; 20 Nov makes more sense to me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blurb trimmed to 1,190 characters including spaces, as per the instructions. Next time, Gerda Arendt, please write a proper-length blurb from the outset rather than making work for someone else. Bencherlite 23:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  I intentionally left the blurb longer, to give the author a chance for accenting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Specific date nominations

October 5

Appaloosa

One point for age, 2 points for widely covered, two points nothing similar six months. Oct 5 is the 135th anniversary of the end of the Nez Perce War.--PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, good move, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support A featured article that deserves to be on the main page.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support As one of the lead editors on the piece, we'd be honored to have it appear. But can you chop this sentence from the blurb? "Appaloosas are prone to develop equine recurrent uveitis and congenital stationary night blindness; the latter has been linked to the leopard complex" It's accurate, and in the lead, but given its prevalence (8%), may be undue weight for the main page blurb. Montanabw 20:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  Done. And thanks!PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  You (everybody) can change the blurb yourself, that's part of the quality discussion here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Can we have a close up rear view to show the world?  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  If we find one, sure!PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  The article already contains File:Appaloosa46-2.jpg a ways down the page (see "blanket with spots") LOL! Montanabw 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  OH YEA forgot about that one! PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, albeit another US “out-west” article ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  (slaps Br'er) Hey! Spots go back to Ice Age Europe, nothing out west about that! LOL! Montanabw 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support- Nothing wrong here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• This may go on teh main page, now ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - quite a fascinating breed with a long and varied history - article seems very complete. Great selection. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

October 8

Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)

Two points for age, 1 for date relevance, two points nothing similar six months. Oct 8 is the 157th anniversary of battle at mouth of river.PumpkinSky talk 00:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: the blurb would not make me click. The date relevance is not visible, but the snow is. In October, I would like to see a different image ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  I replaced the snowy image with a greener one. LittleMountain5 02:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – I think a river is nice, but another article about the American West/Northwest. Needs some spreading out imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Referencing mechanism is incredibly old-school; not an example of best practice. <br /> 23:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, probably incredibly two-and-a-half years ago, when it passed. Out of curiosity, do you know of an article that follows the "best practice?" LittleMountain5 01:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That'd be {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}}, which do literally the same thing except with a template. Ed  01:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And they do more, such as facilitate WP:V and ease maintenance. <br /> 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, ] isn't much more than {{sfn|author|date|pages}}. Same with <ref name="Source" group=Note/> versus {{refn|name=Source|group=Note}}. Ed  02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

/yeah/, really ;) You're just missing it. A pity… <br /> 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The old school refs aren't longer in wikitext and look the same. Good enough for me. ;-) Ed  02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the only concerns, though… <br /> 02:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I know quite a few of them ;) this was unimpressive. <br /> 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

...An example would be nice. What are your other concerns? LittleMountain5 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Allegro (musical)'s handy, just below. You not making any effort to restore the edits I'd made that you stepped on is still of concern ;) <br /> 06:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since two-thirds of the references are online sources, I feel that the method already in use is better in this case. But the sfn template does clean up the code a bit, so I might try using that. Thanks! Is the coding the problem here, or the general layout? I've long sought after a viable alternative to the reference layout... it feels clunky to me.

I apologize for the edit stomp. I fully intended to restore your changes, and was in the process of doing so when you restored them yourself. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I converted all the references to sfn, although I'm not sure what to do with the multiple undated USGS and Topoquest sources... LittleMountain5 02:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's looking better. See: here, where I used some abbreviations to de-clutter the reference section, and here, where I expanded some of the 'a', 'b' qualifiers to make the footnotes more meaningful. The idea is to take control of the footnote that so that it is useful to readers (and other editors;). Another push in that direction and Bob's your uncle. <br /> 05:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I tweaked the footnotes some more; I think it's looking pretty nice now. LittleMountain5 15:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• A battle that doesn't even get mentioned in the blurb is far too tenuous a link to merit a date relevance point, IMHO. Bencherlite 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

October 10

Allegro

One point for age, one point for anniversary of Broadway opening, two points nothing similar six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: a piece with an interesting story. I would like to see the date mentioned rather early in the blurb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Sure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: looks good to me.--Chimino (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support...Modernist (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support – because of the article's subject and despite my view of the idiotic "date relevance" of October 10. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  now I get it. October 10 is important and really ties in! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Lucky102 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  Note: user is a blocked sock. --Rschen7754 06:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Montanabw 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

October 14

Southern Cross Expedition

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, date relevance, under represented +1 = 4, Oct 14 is date of death of the expedition zoologist. PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, great article on heroic topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 points the date relevance is far too tenuous and this is an article within the history category at WP:FA, not one of "underrepresented" categories. Bencherlite 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support for any date there would be more appropriate dates than this e.g. 19 December when the ship finally sails from Australia for the Antarctic, but (subject to any preference from the primary author, who I've just notified as per the instructions above) this could just run on any date the TFA scheduler wants. Bencherlite 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

October 15

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

100th anniversary of commission to the fleet; promoted to FA over a year ago; no battleships for nearly six months. That's about nine points. -- Dianna (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make-it-so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Battlecruiser operational - Er, support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support -although I'll note for the record that the last warship TFA was USS New Ironsides a month ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Meh; I suppose I should have remembered ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we think about the fact that the ship was likely named "Friedrich der Große", which is not prominantly mentioned in the article, I just see a little footnote behind an English name, saying "or" as if both could be used the same. "Gross" would be pronounced differently in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  As, for example, de:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It was there, once upon a time ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's an FA on vi:wp, too:

  • vi:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911)

  and they moved it to the proper spelling:

  • diff of vi:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911)

  I'm quite sure that “ß” is not actually part of the Vietnamese language, but they named their article properly… This really is an issue specific to English language cultures.

  Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the ship was named Friedrich der Große, but the policy on the English Misplaced Pages is to follow established English usage. In the vast majority of English-language sources, the name is rendered without the eszett, which is why the article is titled as it is. As for the note, we determined over the course of several ACRs/FACs that it was the best way to handle the alternative spelling issue without unduly cluttering the lead section.

  I was not part of those discussions, but as a German native speaker can tell you that it looks wrong. If the name is given in German, I think it should be given in correct German, and a name is a name. I don't go and call you Parsecboi because I lack a letter, - which would be the only reason to say "Grosse" instead of "Große". It sounds like "grossly insulting", pun intended. I was told that polite is irrelevant, but politely disagree and think it would be polite to honour the ship by calling it its name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012‎ (UTC)

  That's all well and good, but WP:UE is policy; we need a pretty good reason to ignore a long-standing policy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  To my understanding this policy would apply if the article would call the ship a common English name, such as "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great" (example: "Bayreuth Festival" instead of "Bayreuther Festspiele"). But it doesn't, it uses German, at least it seems to try to do so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Read the first line of the section: the choice is between local spellings and Anglicized variants - for instance, one of the examples is Besançon (the Anglicized version would omit the cedilla). But since the city is commonly referred to it in English with the cedilla, it is appropriate to keep it. For German words in English usage, umlauts are commonly retained (so Karl Dönitz, not Karl Doenitz or Donitz) but the eszett is usually converted into the double "s". In some specialist sources, the original spelling is used, but in most general sources, this ship is referred to as Friedrich der Grosse in English. Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I am unable to understand why the umlaut would be kept, which doesn't sound different, but not the "ß", which sounds completely different, long vowel vs. short vowel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know why English uses what it does, but the umlaut does sound different than simply dropping it (Donitz would not sound the same as Dönitz). It's presumably because the umlaut is somehow easier to reproduce than the eszett. All I can tell you is what is common English usage in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  You said Doenitz above, that would sound the same as Dönitz, whereas "Grosse" sound grossly wrong. The reason that "ß" was not available on keyboards (the reason why those sources simplified to ss) is no longer valid, so why not use it. We night eventually correct a "long-standing" error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  ps: the article on the person after which the ship ad others are name knows only "Große".

  To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, apart from following what policy prescribes. If you or others want to attempt to change it, that's fine, but to simply ignore it in this case, we need a better reason than saying we don't like it or it's wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  I say then that it's wrong. My proposal for the blurb would be:

SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) was the second vessel of the Kaiser class of battleships of the German Imperial Navy. Named after Frederick the Great, she is also known as "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great". She was commissioned into the fleet on 15 October 1912. Assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I, she served as fleet flagship from her commissioning until 1917. The ship participated in all the major fleet operations of World War I, including the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916, where she emerged from the battle completely unscathed. After Germany's defeat and the signing of the armistice in November 1918, Friedrich der Große and most of the capital ships of the High Seas Fleet were interned by the British Royal Navy in Scapa Flow. On 21 June 1919, days before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter ordered the fleet to be scuttled to ensure that the British could not seize the ships. Friedrich der Große was raised in 1936 and broken up for scrap metal.

The articles lead might mention "Older sources give the name as Friedrich der Grosse". Other than that, I see no reason to promote wrong German (it's "groß" even after our last orthography reform) and disrespect to the common name of a German king ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The ship has never been known as Frederick the Great; that's just a translation of the name... Ed  07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprised, where does "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great" come from, then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple translation of the name. Seiner Majestät Schiff Friedrich der Große = His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great. (note that the ruler's name has been anglicized, but the ship name has not, aside from replacing the eszett) Ed  08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now I got "SMS", finally, that is the abbreviation of the German, interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I feel that the lead image is a much cleaner photo than the one used in the blurb (and thus a better choice). Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I found that at 180px the lead image doesn't work as well. Here they are side by side. The various darker shades on the image I chose give it some nice contrast. In the lead image, the water is choppy, which makes the ship kinda disappear at this resolution.-- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - I hadn't looked at the lead image at that resolution. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

October 18

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, Date relevant to article topic +1, total = 3.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This blurb needs work. Should be one paragraph, and the date is generally year only. Looks a little short, but that could just be me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I have re-written the blurb. See what you think -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  From a technical aspect it's better, but I don't think it needs the dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, interesting (and another woman), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support- I really like this page; might need a bit of tidying. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 points - death dates, by longstanding convention on this page, do not get a date relevance point unless the death itself was notable (e.g. the death of John Lennon gave his article a date relevance point). Bencherlite 08:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is changing. The point math seems only relevant if there is "competition" about a specific day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so why do we need points at all any more? Nominate an article for a slot, explain why it deserves it and let supports/opposes/"prefer the competing article" decide, rather than artificial discussions about whether a previous recent TFA is sufficiently similar to a nominated one to impose a points penalty. It would make this page far less complicated. In the meantime, let's get the points right, rather than claiming date relevance points on spurious grounds or incorrectly claiming "underrepresented" or "widely covered" points. Bencherlite 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you place that valid thought - which I would support - on the talk rather than here where it will disappear without even an archive when the Lady will be scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think any Date relevance should be used.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: if Lady Grange (nominated above) runs soon, this will suffer a three point penalty - or, in non-point terms, we ought to spread our 18th-century British women out a bit, not run two in very close proximity. Bencherlite 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Today's featured article requests