Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2023
This is a rough working draft of the current TFA schedule for October. Please add suggestions to the "Notes" section below, not to the table directly. Thanks.
I've just completed my review of this year's TFA scheduling. It's largely a matter of figuring out what the categories are (and then scheduling no more than one per category), and then figuring out the exceptions to that rule. Feedback is welcome, as always. I've left three of the last four days blank for the moment; I'm anticipating that Z1720 will be vetting those. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Notes
editquestions about blurbs
editafter a discussion with Dank, i have decided, for a trial period, to try to ask questions about tfa blurbs mostly on the monthly tfa archive talk pages instead of on fac nominator talk pages. i would appreciate any feedback on whether this is an improvement or not. dying (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't know what you were going to be asking. My position has always been that, if the relevant guideline or the linked article gives an answer, it's less likely to annoy people if you just make the edit, explain why, and invite them to revert if they disagree. I don't really have a preference, but ... well, let's see what responses we get. If you prefer to ask a lot of questions, then maybe the questions would work better here (rather than the nominator's talk page) so that people other than the nominator can do some of the investigation and make the edits, to take some of the burden off the nominator. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I need to have a better idea of what time frame we're working with. Gog, if we think of this as an experiment, is it an experiment you want to continue in November? - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- If like the queries below - which are perspicacious, and I am glad that someone is asking them - they are three days prior to a blurb's appearance on the main page I don't care, as I think this is an abuse of process and I won't be paying any attention. In any sensible system of review, consideration of November's blurbs would be wrapping up about now; or, at the very worst, be well under way. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Heh, I'll take that as a "no", then. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- If like the queries below - which are perspicacious, and I am glad that someone is asking them - they are three days prior to a blurb's appearance on the main page I don't care, as I think this is an abuse of process and I won't be paying any attention. In any sensible system of review, consideration of November's blurbs would be wrapping up about now; or, at the very worst, be well under way. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I need to have a better idea of what time frame we're working with. Gog, if we think of this as an experiment, is it an experiment you want to continue in November? - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Dank, sorry for not having made the types of questions i was planning to ask more clear! they are pretty much the same as those i have been asking on fac nominator talk pages, as seen in most of the edits listed here. however, i was planning to avoid raising issues with an article that weren't relevant to its blurb, as this talk page is about the blurbs, and not about the articles. (for example, with the raymond iii article, i had a question about the use of the ordinal in "Amalric I" in the article lead, but had not previously planned on bringing it up here.) the questions are rather varied, so it is somewhat difficult to succinctly characterize them.
i agree that, if a guideline or linked article makes it clear to me that an edit should be made, i should just make it and explain why i did. admittedly, though, there may still be instances where i'd ask a question while you would have simply made the edit, because i lack the experience you have. (in such instances, please feel free to just make the edit yourself.)
in the specific case of the raymond iii blurb, the fac nominator was the original drafter, so i have given the nominator the benefit of the doubt regarding the first question. i asked the second and third questions because i believe they cover issues other editors may have disagreements over, and i just wanted to make sure the nominator was aware of them. the fourth addressed a stylistic issue that confused me, but since i didn't know if it was intentional, i wouldn't have changed it unilaterally.
Gog, three days before sounds like a good deadline. (i have actually been trying to shift to a similar soft deadline myself, but real life has not been kind lately.) i've already taken a look at all of november's blurbs, but addressing issues in the ones for october have been preventing me from asking questions about the ones for november. there is one blurb for november that might have a contentious issue that i have been meaning to address for a while. if i get around to it, do you have a preference on whether i do so on the november tfa archive talk page, or the fac nominator's talk page? dying (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Any queries on a blurb which is 14 days or further away, feel free to ask it on the November TFA talk page. Anything within 13 days or less I would be grateful if you could use the FAC nominator's talk page. Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- sounds good, Gog. after a discussion with Dank, i've switched my attention to november, so should be able to get my queries out 14 days ahead of time. if you have any further feedback on how i use the monthly archive talk pages, please let me know. dying (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Dying, that sounds great. In which case, feel free to use the equivalent of this page for your November queries and comments. Procedurally what you do below and have done in the past seems to work. If I spot anything which I think needs tweaking, I'll let you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- sounds good, Gog. after a discussion with Dank, i've switched my attention to november, so should be able to get my queries out 14 days ahead of time. if you have any further feedback on how i use the monthly archive talk pages, please let me know. dying (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
raymond iii, count of tripoli
editi had four quick questions about this blurb.
- was "Nur ad-Din" intended to be linked to the article "Nur ad-Din (died 1174)" instead of "Nur al-Din"? the prose of the latter article focuses on the name "Nur al-Din" rather than on a specific person.
- was the choice to use the transliteration "Nur ad-Din" deliberate? i noticed that this transliteration is consistently used in the featured article, but am bringing it up because "Nur al-Din" was used in a tfa blurb a few weeks ago, and i recently learned from this discussion that "Nur al-Din" may be preferred by wp:mosar. my knowledge of arabic is woefully rudimentary, though, so i don't actually know which spelling should be used. i only wanted to make sure that someone more knowledgeable than me in arabic found the use of this transliteration appropriate.
- would it be better to capitalize the 'p' in "prince of Galilee"? i think it could work either way, depending on whether "prince" was meant to be used specifically or generically, but there seems to be a trend on wikipedia to capitalize a title if it is followed by "of x" and mos:jobtitles doesn't disallow it.
- the caption refers to "Baldwin IV of Jerusalem", while the blurb prose refers to the same person as "Baldwin the Leper". was this discrepancy deliberate? i admittedly couldn't tell from the blurb itself that baldwin iv was also baldwin the leper without hovering over the latter link.
apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your query. 1. You are right, the article should be linked to "Nur ad-Din (died 1174)". 2. Baldwin (1969), Hamilton (2000), and Lilie (2004) call him Nur ad-Din; Lock (2006) and Runciman (1989) mention him as Nur ed-Din; whereas Barber (2012), and Lewis (2017) uses the Nur al-Din form. I think the proper form of his name should be decided on the Talk page of the article dedicated to him. For the time being, I prefer the present "Nur ad-Din" form. 3. I still prefer the form "prince of Galilee". 4. I think the two Baldwins should be differentiated. "Baldwin the Leper" is a quite common designation when referring to Baldwin IV. We could change the text: "he ruled Jerusalem as regent for the leprous Baldwin IV
the Leperbetween 1174 and 1176". Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- thanks for your explanations, Borsoka. i have no issues with your preference on the second and third points, and think your suggestion for the fourth works well.Dank, would you mind retargeting the link mentioned in the first question, and also making the change Borsoka suggested if you think it is an improvement? if blurb length is an issue, i might suggest replacing "in modern-day Lebanon" with "now in Lebanon". dying (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done, except for "now in Lebanon" and "leprous"; discussion is welcome at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- thanks, Dank. dying (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done, except for "now in Lebanon" and "leprous"; discussion is welcome at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- thanks for your explanations, Borsoka. i have no issues with your preference on the second and third points, and think your suggestion for the fourth works well.Dank, would you mind retargeting the link mentioned in the first question, and also making the change Borsoka suggested if you think it is an improvement? if blurb length is an issue, i might suggest replacing "in modern-day Lebanon" with "now in Lebanon". dying (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
venus in fiction
editi had two questions about this blurb.
- would it be helpful to note in the blurb text that the roman goddess is also named "Venus"? i am admittedly unsure if we should assume that main page readers are familiar with the origin of the name of the planet. (also, other cultures may use other names for the planet.) the article lead uses the wording "the Roman goddess of the same name" while the blurb currently uses "the Roman goddess". three alternatives i can think of are "the Roman goddess Venus", "the eponymous Roman goddess", and "the namesake Roman goddess". (note that, although i believe the word "namesake" simply refers to someone or something with the same name, and is agnostic about the name's source, there has been an error report requesting the use of "eponym" in a blurb that previously used "namesake".)
- although i think "often portrayed as gentle, ethereal and beautiful, and often female" is grammatically correct, i admittedly found the construction rather unusual. would "often portrayed as gentle, ethereal, beautiful, and female" be an improvement? this wording would also eliminate the second "often", which seems redundant.
dying (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinions on this. TompaDompa (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mildly support changes proposed by dying. No objection. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- following the feedback received, i have implemented both proposals. please feel free to edit the blurb further if anything is not to your liking. thanks, TompaDompa and Piotrus. dying (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mildly support changes proposed by dying. No objection. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
hurricane willa
editi had two questions about this blurb.
- i was having trouble finding a source that reported the value of 16.1 billion mxn. was this number calculated from reliable sources, relying on the exception provided by wp:calc? if so, i am guessing that the values of 6 billion mxn for escuinapa, 10 billion mxn for nayarit, and 140 million mxn for durango were summed up, without taking significant figures into consideration. if this was the case, i think the ".1" implies a false sense of accuracy, so would suggest replacing "16.1" with "more than 16" and "825" with "820". (this essay has additional information on the issue.)
- is "MX$" a commonly used symbol on wikipedia for the mexican peso? the "Mexican peso" article appears to only use it once, with "MXN $" used much more often. i'd offer to ask for guidance at wt:date if people think it would help.
dying (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed both issues... MXN is correct. Noah, AATalk 20:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Dolphin picture broken
editThe picture of the dolphin featured article is somehow not showing but I don't know how to fix it as the whole page is coming from a template. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the blurb, there's nothing to fix ... just after the blurb left the Main Page, that image was deleted at Commons as (an assumed) copyright violation. We don't generally try to fix blurbs after they've done their job on the Main Page; they just serve as an archive. If you're talking about the article, I don't see a broken image link at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)