Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 13 April 2012

• WT:TFAR

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

April Fools suggestions

I guess it's that time of year again when I begin soliciting suggested blurbs for April Fools. So, write up your suggestions and post them here I can judge them. The goal is to fool people into dismissing the article as an obvious hoax when in fact it is completely true. Bonus points for funny or weird subject matter. Raul654 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about pigeon photography? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I'd say that's the top of my list (It's very, very much in line with what I'm looking for) :) Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been going on here for a long time now. Basically everyone that has commented there feels pigeon photography is one of if not the best choice. Only other suggestions that are already FAs are Olivia Shakespear and Typhoon Gay (1992).--Found5dollar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon Photography looks very good: is there a proposal for what the actual extract will be. I would prefer as little change as possible. Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A blurb which skirts around the actual application of pigeon photography might be best, leaving a reader to wonder "and just what are these pigeons taking pictures of?" without needing too much re-writing. I'm all in favour of misdirection, but that which uses as little actual change as possible is always the most effective. GRAPPLE X 20:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pigeon Photography. Would very much prefer not to see Olivia Shakespear run on April Fools Day. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why Olivia might even have been suggested as an April 1 candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pigeon Photography My third year in nominating it--T1980 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon photography was a military aerial photography technique invented in 1907 by the German apothecary Julius Neubronner, who also trained pigeons to deliver medications. A homing pigeon was fitted with an aluminium breast harness to which a lightweight miniature camera could be attached for operation during flight. The pigeon photographers' indifference to explosions made them ideal for military applications, and they served with distinction during the First World War, both as photographers and messengers. The reckless over-deployment of pigeon volunteers at Verdun and the Somme induced severe posttraumatic stress disorder among Neubronner's charges, which forced him to abandon his experiments. The French and German militaries both attempted to persuade the photographers to return to the field during the Second World War, but failed to do so. Pigeons in the United States were later drafted for espionage photography duty by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The technique was adapted for civilian use by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which soon expanded its photographer ranks far beyond pigeons. Animals such as falcons, cats and dogs were accepted as BBC photographers as late as 2004. (more…)

Too silly? —Cliftonian (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think we can really justify the designation as volunteers, nor do I see what would amount to avian stress disorder. The dog and cat camera pieces have nothing to do with the BBC. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The references to "volunteers" and "stress disorder" were just supposed to be a joke, but okay then. I take your point about the cats and the dogs, that was just me trying to streamline, assuming for April Fool's Day it didn't really matter. More Fool me! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon photography looks perfect but please keep jokes and misleading text out of the write-up; the very concept sounds bizarre enough. --mav (reviews needed) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The whole idea is to have a completely serious caption. --Tone 08:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That blurb needs some work I think, but it's probably basically on the right lines. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If people feel a need to make the blurb funnier, let's at least do it in style and stay with the truth. Maybe something like the following? (Some of the information is taken from the Julius Neubronner article.)

Pigeon photography was an aerial photography technique originally invented in 1907 by Julius Neubronner, German film amateur and court apothecary of Empress Frederick. Neubronner, who had been using pigeons for medicine delivery and film special effects, came up with the idea after one of them absented iself for four unexplained weeks. Notable later refinements of the method include the use of clockworks by a Swiss clockmaker, batteries by the Central Intelligence Agency, and falcons by the British Broadcasting Corporation. After experimental deployment of the method in the Battle of the Somme, it was used again in a military context by the Germans in the Second World War and later by the United States. Neubronner's house in Kronberg near Frankfurt, the Streitkirche, was originally built by the protestant citizens as a catholic church, so there was plenty of space for the inventor's family, pharmacy, and experiments. Neubronner's paper tape factory is still in business, his films have recently been restored and published on YouTube, and his house still holds the pharmacy (as well as a museum). But the art of pigeon photography today is relegated to enthusiasts such as the prince in a recent film version of Sleeping Beauty. (more…)

This may be a bit too extreme. I guess halfway between this and the original lead is ideal, but I wanted to present all the material that we can work with. Hans Adler 12:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it reads too much like a biography of Neubronner... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's a problem. Maybe it's best to just use the existing lead, and maybe just work a little bit too hard obviously trying to make it sound plausible... Hans Adler 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a more-or-less verbatim write-up from the article itself. Others are welcome to change it, but I'll revert if the changes are too silly or over-the-top. Remember, the key here is to be completely true, but with the goal that someone reading it on April 1 won't be able to tell if it's a hoax or not. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I dove in her. Revert, as inapplicable! —MistyMorn (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert. When you rewrite a text for style, make sure that you keep the meaning or only change it when you know what you are doing. Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in the sources to support the claim that the technique "stalled" (whatever that means) in the First World War, as opposed to the military losing interest afterwards. But there were also several other inaccuracies, so that I felt it better to revert wholesale than to fix everything individually. Hans Adler 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hans: Point taken. With the benefit of hindsight, I probably should have started my preliminary work in a sandbox before introducing suggestions step by step.

What I've done for the moment is:

1) to save (here) the version I was working on, which I realize had become over-egged and overlong;

2) submit (here) to you, and any other interested parties, a few changes which I feel may be good.

(Fyi, I realized that the WWI sentence needed attention and was working on it; "stalled was used in the sense of come to a standstill.) —MistyMorn (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier grumpiness. I have now gone over the World War I information in the lead once more. Hans Adler 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I'd let myself get carried away with the fun. As an outsider, so to speak, I think inclusion of material on WWI is good for the lede as a whole. For April Fools Day only, I quite liked the idea of working in lipstick-sized cameras towards the end. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

May 17th is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. I think an article fitting that theme would be nice. I have found the article The Well of Loneliness, which is a lesbian themed novel that was subject to censorship and trial. I think it would have 3 points total. Can anyone think of an article that might be a better choice or have more points? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is perhaps the best choice. Other options would be biography articles on an LGBT person. David Bowie, Angelina Jolie, Russell T Davies, Nicolo Giraud and Don Dunstan (who also helped decriminalise homosexuality in South Australia) are the available LGBT biographies. Pyrrhus16 07:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to check to see if there was a better article that I had missed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove Tiananmen Square self immolation page

I edit and watch in the Falun Gong space of articles. I strongly suggest that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page be removed from the main page. It is currently subject to intensive, controversial editing and to some degree edit warring. The tenor of the page has changed dramatically in the last 48-72 hours, with upwards of 60 edits that quickly changed important parts of the article. I am about to submit a note for its Featured Article status to be reconsidered, with a view to rescinding that status, because of this. The page is not stable and currently suffers neutrality issues.

Background to this note:

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; editor user:Ohconfucius was the lead editor at the time. He put tremendous effort into seeing the page reach FA status. The page was revisited in 2011 by a group of editors who discussed major changes quite exhaustively (lead by several editors who are more sympathetic to Falun Gong). At that time, editor user:SilkTork wrote that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done."--a lot of the changes that occurred were discussed extensively. Consensus was reached. That was early 2011.

Ohconfucius re-appeared a couple of days ago and made a flurry of changes, apparently in an attempt to return the page, in whole or part, to how it was in 2009, when he edited it. He ignored the interim discussion. The changes made in 2011 identified and resolved misrepresentation, omissions, original syntheses, and failure to cogently present the views of Falun Gong or third parties in a manner commensurate with their notability, etc. Ohconfucius preceded to edit, apparently bringing the page back to how it was in 2009, without discussion or any attempt to form consensus. An example: the 2009 version did not say that the use of torture on Falun Gong practitioners increased in the wake of the immolation; that was added to the page in the 2011 version; Ohconfucius deleted that piece of information when he started editing the page again. Ohconfucius has made around 60+ edits, judging by the history. Most of those edits, many of them controversial, were not discussed. He was asked on his talk page and on the immolation talk page, and for the most part failed to do so while continuing to make make changes that changed the tenor of the article. His peers have expressed exasperation at this behavior.

This is obviously a sensitive topic. The incident led to people being tortured and killed. It thus deserves to be treated with circumspection and caution. That caution has not been forthcoming, and I think it would be valuable if an administrator would intercede and monitor the discussion, because attempts for other editors to discuss it with Ohconfucius have not been effective. There is a behavioral problem when an editor makes that many changes unilaterally while ignoring the discussions, particularly when it's a featured article under ArbCom sanctions. He has been politely and repeatedly asked not to make substantial changes, including those that misrepresent sources--which he's done more than once--or change the balance of the page without discussing, but has not done so. It is difficult to know what to do, except find some time to breathe.

Thus, I am strongly urging that the page be removed from the front page as a featured article. I am also entering a request for the page's feature status to be reconsidered. And I am initiating a mediation request so that an uninvolved editor can step in between Ohconfucius, the page, and other editors, to make sure that proper process is being followed on this important and contentious topic.

Further notes: I have made a decision not to edit the page amidst the current strong dispute. Ohconfucius has an open opposition and animus toward Falun Gong. I have said to Ohconfucius that it is my opinion that he is too close and invested in the topic, and should stick to the voluntary self-ban he initiated some time ago. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

General Relativity on April 18th

I was about to nominate General relativity as a non-specific date, but then I noticed that the anniversary of Einstein's death is coming up on April 18th. Do you think I should wait and nominate it for the 18th or does it not really matter? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We had Introduction to general relativity as TFA on April 18, 2010 (the 55th anniversary of Einstein's death), so it is likely too soon to feature the General relativity article. Pyrrhus16 12:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule preventing it? It has been two years, so I think that is enough of a gap between the articles. I would like some Einstein themed article to run, and the GR article makes the most sense. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The 18th sounds good to me. 2 years is easily long enough of a gap! Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

These are just a few suggestions I've thought up.

1. The Misplaced Pages:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page article needs to be more prominently listed. It should be accessible from all the FA related pages. 2. The list perhaps could be re-organized as a table or series of tables. It would include extra information that might make easier to use in selecting articles. This can include:

• Age
• Broad category and specific category (eg. "Physics" and "Physics biography")
• Whether it's a vital topic, underrepresented, or a core topic
• Dates that might be of interest if relevant (death, birth, discovery, etc)
• Current total points of the article. This would have to be maintained by a bot, and would be more complex than the others and is not essential.

3. Increase the request slots. Non-date specific should be increased to three, and date specific should be increased to 7. The reason is that an article can be nominated a long time before it is set to run, and it can sit and eat up space on the request board for almost a month. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only two people who make the decision on which articles to run, and I'm sure both of them are well aware of where to find Misplaced Pages:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. The last thing this process needs is more request slots; the whole point is to limit the number of nominations to a manageable amount and avoid the mess that this page used to be. This is what TFAR used to look like, and nobody in their right mind wants to go back to it. In any event, I'd imagine virtually all FA writers are aware of this page—which is only two clicks away from the Main Page—and even if not, would know that Raul is the person to ask. The last thing anyone wants is to encourage more driveby nominations, which tend to generate nothing but antagonism; if an article's writers haven't nominated it for TFA there's generally an excellent reason. "Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page" isn't a synonym for "Featured articles that ought to be on the Main Page", despite the number of people who seem to think otherwise. 188.29.159.108 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)