Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
Elliott Fitch Shepard Review it now
Bill Cosby in advertising Review it now
Xx (album) Review it now
61 Cygni Review it now
Featured article removal candidates
view edit
Marian Rejewski Review it now


For a little over two years, the TFA paragraph on the Main Page has ended with "(Full article...)" (with a link). I'd like to remove the ellipsis, but Bencherlite believes we have a long-standing consensus for it. I don't. The discussion that produced that is at Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#Featured article link. Note that mention of the ellipsis is missing from the entire discussion, until the end:

It's a shame that the "..." is completely gone now. Would it not be possible to have "(Read the full article...)" and "(Read the full list...)"? It's kinda more inviting... and it lures you in... and urges you to read further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the IP that this would be a good change, space permitting... --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And that's all there was; the TFA coords Dabomb then decided it should be in the current form. There's a lot I could say about this, but let's keep it simple if we can: could someone give me an example in professionally copyedited text of "X..." meaning "You will find the thing X if you click here"? ("More..." doesn't count ... that and "More to come..." are set phrases that gained traction in, as I recall, the 80s. What we had was fine for the first 9 years of TFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Times use the ellipis on their article blurbs, which is the one I know off the top of my head... - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, that's an example of what ellipses usually mean ("we're breaking in the middle of a sentence, off in mid-discussion, the rest is somewhere else"). I can't recall seeing a use of ellipses in the sense they're being used in "Full article..." (outside of the "More..." set phrase), but I don't read as much as I used to, and I often find these days that I'm not up on some new trend, maybe I'm missing this one too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that covers what The Times‍ '​s practice is – I've seen the end of a sentence followed by the ellipsis. My personal reference would be to retain it, fwiw. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I changed my wording to "breaking off in mid-discussion" (in the middle of a sentence or not). There's actually a well-known reason I'm asking for examples rather than opinions ... the brain deals with orthography (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, etc.) in a different way than it deals with words. After even a very brief exposure to odd orthography, people will swear that they've seen it before and that it's perfectly okay. This isn't an example of our brains being stupid ... the most efficient way to write and read is to grab the meaning and put all the extraneous stuff (including orthography) out of your mind. This is what gives copyeditors fits ... we're constantly struggling with people who are completely positive that something is commonplace, but somehow can't find any examples of what they're talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The only other thing I'll add is that we are not constrained by what other sites/publishers do and don't do: we are mature enough to have our own unique MoS and can use whatever punctuation we want in any way we want. I agree with the IP from a couple of years ago - "It's kinda more inviting... and it lures you in... and urges you to read further..." and if it makes people want to read further, that's good enough for me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a whole 'nuther conversation ... and a fun one ... but I think it muddies the issue here, Schro. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it muddies it at all: it's a rather important factor that needs to be considered. We do not need to follow other style guides because we have our own, and if we want to use the triple dot as an "inviter" to read more, then we are entirely able to. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
An example is just a click away. There is a human-computer interface design paradigm that items that generate another page or dialog should end in an ellipsis. That's why your File menu says "Exit" but "Save Page As..." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks like an example of my point, not your point, Hawkeye. The ellipsis is used for an incomplete sentence, as usual, but not for "Exit", which is a complete thought, again as usual. Can you give me a link of what you're talking about so I can check? - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c with Hawkeye x 2) Personally I'm not sure I see much of a difference between "breaking off in mid-discussion, the rest is somewhere else" and (Full article...) at the end of a blurb, pointing from a very abbreviated summary of an article to the whole thing. There's a separate issue of whether the ellipsis should be preceded by a space, as per WP:ELLIPSIS, but that's secondary of course to whether there should be dots at all. I prefer having an ellipsis as a guide into the full article, as has been done since the start of TFAs, but have no strong views on whether it should be preceded by a space or not. Incidentally, you've overlooked that some of the participants in the 2012 discussion put forward options that included "...", and nobody spoke out against them; you're also incorrect in referring to "TFA coords" in the plural, since at that time the title was "TFA delegate" and (more importantly) was only held by Dabomb, as it predated my appointment. I have left messages at T:MP, WT:FAC, WT:FLC, and WT:TFAR, since this isn't something that the small number who watch this page ought to have a monopoly on deciding. BencherliteTalk 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I struck "coords" and added "Dabomb". And no, I didn't overlook that some suggested ellipses; they suggested ellipses used in the usual sense, except in the set phrases "More..." or "Continue...". They left off ellipses in the other cases. No one spoke out against them because, in that discussion, they were used in the usual way, until the very end (the two comments I quoted above). - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My partner John just put an interesting spin on this that I hadn't picked up on ... he's never seen ellipses in the sense used here either, so he thought it was in the nature of an emoticon ... the equivalent of adding a chat-room wink, or in this case, a special symbol that means "there's more coming" in a chat. I have no objection to that usage at all ... if that's the tone you're looking for, a chatroom rather than something professionally copyedited. In that case, perhaps I should start every TFA paragraph with "Hey you guys, check this out!" - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great strawman argument, Dan! BencherliteTalk 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Uh, no, I only meant to bring up the point that we need to look at tone as well as meaning. I only have the one argument, but it's a good one. Btw ... I'm kind of surprised this is so hard, and I've learned a useful lesson here I think, I'll stay away from hard orthography questions in lead sections (though of course I'll do the best I can in the TFA paragraphs). - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would question if the issue is worth the time spent on it. If the blurb doesn't sell the reader on continuing to the article itself, what good will ellipses do?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I learned from Mandarax that an ellipsis added without a space to a word indicates that something is missing of that word, - otherwise it would need a space - after "article". Otherwise I don't care, with ellipsis or without. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal -- If the link in bold is still there for the reader that says Full article, then I think it's a good idea to remove the three little dots after that. Also agree with Wehwalt (talk · contribs), about if the blurb doesn't entice the reader to read the article and click-over to it, those three little dots won't, either. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I find myself in agreement with Wehwalt (and regret the time spent reading this discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If you're in agreement with Wehwalt, then I've accomplished something at least. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. I struck, and I'll come ask what's up. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this is going down in flames ... I'd like to withdraw the proposal, with some observations.

  • There are lots of copyediting questions I could have asked here. Some thought this was a poor one to lead with, and at this point, I agree.
  • We don't have many copyeditors on Wikipedia, and the ones we have usually don't offer their services freely to nominators. A few people (no one here) regard copyeditors mostly as the obstacles they're trying to get past so they can get that star or whatever, as the people who are keeping them from saying what they want to say the way they want to say it. It's true that some copyeditors are kind of a pain, and the whole profession is a bit stuffy. The better copyeditors help writers make their writing bulletproof, so that their readership doesn't misunderstand it, misrepresent it, rewrite it, or look down on it for irrelevant reasons. One of the best ways to increase throughput at FAC and make the experience more pleasant and more focused on the things that actually count (i.e., not focused on copyediting) would be to recruit more copyediters. But I suspect they're not going to come until more Wikipedians get some insight into how copyeditors go about their jobs and arrive at answers (answers that you're free to reject, of course). That's all I'm going to say about that for now. I'm pessimistic about quick resolutions to this problem, but optimistic about the long term. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Audie Murphy on March 17[edit]

Is there some reason Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2015 does not have the image with it? If there is some concern about it, there is always this one: File:Audie Murphy-DW ORIGINAL PUBLICITY PROMO PHOTO.jpg — Maile (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem to be getting any answer on this. But there is also this possible image File:Audie Murphy Whispering Smith 1961.JPG. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Pinging the powers that be: @WP:TFA coordinators: BencherliteTalk 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I woulda done that, but surely they have this page watchlisted? Maile, I suggest patience is the order of the day, since fortunately the 17th is quite a ways off still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure they do, but a ping never hurts. It also gave me the opportunity to add the pretty box at the top about {{@TFA}}, which not everyone will know about! At a guess, it was an oversight since the image is in the nomination with no adverse comments. BencherliteTalk 20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I had already stuck in the Whispering Smith photo. Usually if there is a problem with an image, somebody says something and asks if there is a different one that can be used. I don't care which one is used, but it seemed odd without any at all, and no comment about it.— Maile (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Dank prepares the TFA blurbs, and normally deals with image issues. I am sure he will respond here if there are any further issues with this image choice. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really, Crisco did everything involving images up through Feb 28, and then when someone pointed out the rollover captions weren't being done starting March 2, I started doing those and adding size=133px as needed. I can do more if necessary, but since I haven't worked with images before, there would be a learning curve. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been busy with RL, so I haven't gotten to the Audie Murphy blurb yet. I'll have a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:TFA title[edit]

I happened to notice that User:AnomieBOT II was logging an error that it couldn't find the bolded FA link in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2015 to create Template:TFA title/March 14, 2015, which turned out to be because it was looking for '''[[link|text]]''' (and similarly for <b>, and unpiped of course) while the blurb contained [[link|'''text''']]. I've updated the bot to also recognize the bolding inside the piped portion now, but it would be helpful if people frequenting this process could somehow keep an eye on whether the pages are getting created in case something similar happens in the future. If nothing else, duplicating the short list at Template:TFA title#Next days somewhere visible to people working this process would help. Thanks! Anomie 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anomie. As long as it recognizes '''[[link|text]]''' and [[link|'''text''']], I think we'll be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) TFA[edit]

I got a note on my talk page about Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) being scheduled and unscheduled for TFA. I was thinking we could save it for the 50th anniversary of its chart debut on May 20, 2017.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and will defer scheduling it for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)