Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Toledo War

Toledo War[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brian (and as I mentioned below)

The Toledo War was a nearly bloodless territorial dispute that was caused by a border dispute. Thanks to poor surveying and conflicting legislation, the US state of Ohio and territory of Michigan both claimed sovereignty over a 468 square miles (1,210 km²) strip of land extending west from the edge of Lake Erie. Drawing its name from the then-prosperous city of Toledo, the war began when the governors of Michigan and Ohio raised militias to forcefully stake their claim to the disputed territory. President Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party could not afford to lose the electoral votes of Ohio, so Jackson moderated several deals that defused the conflict in Ohio's favor. Michigan agreed at the "Frost-bitten Convention" of December to sacrifice Toledo for statehood and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan—which was considered worthless at the time but would later be an important copper and iron mining center. Vestiges of the dispute persisted for 137 years and were ended only with the help of the national Supreme Court. Today, the Toledo War is still fought, albeit on a contracted annual basis. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s):
Main editors: Hotstreets
Promoted: August 18, 2006
Reasons for nomination: Unusual, but not silly, article for April 1. Please edit the blurb as needed. This would replace Invisible rail, which is a good article but doesn't come across as very unusual IMHO.
Support as nominator. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I guess. I don't know if there is really time to swap this out, but, yes, this is a better selection for the date. And no misleading wording really is required. (Some editing of the blurb is needed, but I have to step away from my computer soon so can't do it myself.) -- tariqabjotu 05:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Toledo War was 'fought' in the United States between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan in 1835 and 1836. They tussled over a five-to-eight-mile-wide (8 to 13 km) strip of land mainly because few understood the geography of the Great Lakes (inaccurate 18th-century map pictured), and both governments thought the land was theirs. The conflict began with political maneuvering, as Ohio used the dispute to block Michigan's bid for statehood, before attempting to legislate the other into capitulating. When these failed, their militias were mobilized to taunt each other across the Maumee River. In the only military confrontation, Michigan militiamen fired shots into the air and captured Ohioan surveyors; the war's only casualty was a wounded sheriff, stabbed with a penknife. Eventually, the US Congress proposed that Michigan would receive statehood and the completely undeveloped Upper Peninsula in exchange for the strip, which included the then-prosperous eponymous city of Toledo. Michigan accepted the deal in the "Frost-bitten Convention" of December 1836, but it was only solved 137 years later with the help of the national Supreme Court. Both sides won, to some extent, as the Upper Peninsula was later exceedingly valuable, though occasionally volatile. Today, the Toledo War is still fought, albeit on a contracted annual basis. (Full article...)

Support some version of the alternate blurb. One was written a few years ago, and I think it's a bit funnier without being untrue. Notes: because of piped links, it might be longer than 1,200 characters of wikicode, and I've often wondered why we penalize editors' usage of piped links by counting characters of wikicode over characters of displayed text. If necessary, the coordinators should feel free to trim the displayed text down to accommodate size constraints, but relying on the raw code character count is not an accurate reflection of the displayed length on the main page. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah! I thought I had seen a blurb before. While true, I don't think we can use the Wisconsin sentence unless we have a RS (I removed it—it read "The entirely uninvolved Wisconsin, on the other hand, was the real loser, as the Upper Peninsula would otherwise probably have become part of that state.") That said, the rest of it is pretty good. I made a few edits to make it formal enough for today's TFA climate, and really like the closing line. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I adopted a bit of the language for the original proposal. I don't mind either one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Imzadi1979, where have you got the idea that "we penalize editors' usage of piped links by counting characters of wikicode over characters of displayed text" from? The instructions—which are in a big highlighted box at the top of this page, not hidden away in an obscure WP:MOS page somewhere—say total length of blurb when previewed (including spaces) as close as possible to 1,200 characters maximum, which to me is unequivocal in saying that it's the character count as viewed that's counted, not the character count in the edit window. – iridescent 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at the invisible rail nomination, there is currently a consensus among the delegates to not run "deliberately misleading" blurbs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to @WP:TFA coordinators for opinions; something like this should not be decided unilaterally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't get it. Why's this suitable for April 1? (Excuse my stupidity) --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dweller: No worries. I wasn't going to a specific joke, as that would get rejected; I liked this article because it veers towards the absurd while being absolutely true. Two non-sovereign states drum up militias and call for war over a strip of land eight miles wide (or less). There's something called the "Frost-bitten Convention". It's only solved 137 years later, and the rivalry kindled then still exists today (being originally from Michigan, I can confirm that they hate Ohio). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Thanks, User:The ed17. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I enjoyed this article and would love it to be on Main Page, but for me, it's not April Foolsy enough for April Fools'. I appreciate that we struggle to find the right level every year. :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Personally, I have no problems with this running during April Fools. If there are no better candidates next year, though (Emu War or Pig War could use love, Milhist!) I'd love to run this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The April 1 TFAR was scheduled some time ago, after weeks of allowing as much time for debate as possible before the decision was taken. So why is further pointless debate on his date being continued now? This nomination is well outside the "open" dates for TFAR, and should be closed forthwith. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brianboulton: THen perhaps you should do some advertising to let people know what's going on? Clearly few people noticed it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]