Talk:Fabergé egg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Fabergé egg is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
November 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry / Jewelry  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Visual arts / History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
 

Videos[edit]

older comments[edit]

The article discusses only the Imperial eggs. The House of Fabergé also made eggs for the aristocrats. The role of workmasters, especially Michael Perchin should be mentioned, and the extraordinary range of materials and techniques referred to. --Wetman 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

"Faberge egg", "Faberge eggs" and "Fabergé eggs" should redirect here. But I don't know how to do it. Can anyone help?

Done. LeoDV 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

Wording regarding surviving eggs[edit]

should "have survived" be changed to something like "are known to have survived"

never know who might be hiding one of the lost eggs in their basement.

All this unnecessary disambiguation is contrary to policy[edit]

Folks, you can't just make up new guidelines out of thin air that are contrary to how all the other articles on WP are titled. I just found Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) and Danish Palaces did not even exist. Of course I moved Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) to Danish Palaces [1] to fix that. The reasoning in the above close is absurd: "... can be confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject". We have NEVER titled WP articles to be recognizable for people who are unfamiliar with a given topic or topic area. If we did that, we'd have to rename most of our articles. The guiding principle has always been recognizability for those who ARE familiar, not those who are NOT familiar. Now all the other ones that don't require disambiguation have to be fixed. Or do we have to go to move review? --В²C 03:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The above RM is invalid[edit]

  1. The above RM should have been proposed as a multi-move RM, with notices on pages of all potentially affected articles. That didn't happen.
  2. The consensus of the discussion is not at all clear. Option 1 had only 1 oppose. Option 3 was opposed by five participants, but consensus was found to favor it? That makes no sense.
  3. The reasoning given in the close is absurd (see section I created just above).
  4. The close was done by a non-admin; non-admins should not be closing such complex and controversial RM discussions. This is exactly why.

--В²C 04:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed all unnecessary disambiguation from those titles where the disambiguation is unnecessary except for Memory of Azov due to a technical issue. If anyone wants to propose adding all the unnecessary disambiguation, you need to make a proper multi-move RM per the instructions at WP:RM, which will cause all the necessary notification to be made correctly, and an admin needs to close it. --В²C 04:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Local consensus can "override" policy guidelines. The correct response to "I don't agree with the move RFC" isn't to simply revert all of the page moves. You first ask the closer to reconsider (which you have done), then you request a formal review of the closure. This avoids starting move wars and other unpleasantness. I'm not sure where the whole "an admin must close", as I've seen plenty of valid non-admin closures. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As a participant in the RFC who supported one of the unsuccessful options, I would like to say that I felt the close was appropriate. It's not just about counting supports and opposes. The closer addressed objections that had been raised with an accurate description of relevant policy (WP:PRECISE).--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou for that Trystan - I appreciate that my closure wasn't going to please everyone, but I do feel that I paid attention to all relevant policies and having re-checked my closure of the above RfC I still think it was appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I see my reverts have been reverted. That's fine. I'll start a proper multi-page move request at RM when I have time. --В²C 16:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New RM discussion affecting Fabergé egg article titles[edit]

SEE: Talk:Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg)#Requested move 2 May 2017 --В²C 20:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)