Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 17, 2015

Hey all, I copyedited the blurb extensively to incorporate elements of the entire lede, which put more emphasis on his horse-breeding, which is what he is best-known for today. Strugled to keep it under 1200 characters, had to reword a few things differently from how they were phrased in the lede, but hope the blurb is a better summary. Also used a different photo, when he was younger and happier... and on a horse (which might draw in more readers than his grumpy old man photo) Montanabw ^(talk) 20:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: We have a minor problem with the "no aliases" rule here because this fellow is almost universally known as W.R. Brown in horse breeding circles. (Seems to be a family thing, his father and at least one of his brothers is similarly known primarily by initials). Not sure the solution, but wanted to let you know that this was a "thing." Be good if somehow it could be reincorporated into the blurb. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, added. I'm going back through Bencherlite's work trying to figure out what the no-alias rule means. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Maybe just ask Bencher, or did it predate him? (I suppose with a 1200 character limit, too many aka names could be a problem in some cases. ) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We ran C.D. Howe in May 2012.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Noted"

"Noted" as used herein means "well-known, famous, notable." Just per the edits made here and to the article that I reverted. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started discussion at this page and discussion needs to occur here or at the article talk itself, not my talk page.. @John: The phrase "notable horse breeder" or "noted horse breeder" is deliberate. Many wealthy people dabble in horse breeding, Brown did not; he became one of the largest and most significant breeders of the early 20th century USA. To edit-war over something like "noted' or "notable" where we have a TFA pending, is really quite tendentious and a waste of time, so please discuss your concerns instead of edit-warring over a single word. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I think this is a show-stopper for me. Are you sure you don't understand what I said to you here? --John (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was no different from your edit summaries. You are getting nowhere with me by implying that somehow I am inferior to you in intellect here. I believe what you are saying is that "noted/notable" is, in your opinion, a redundant phrase because everyone in Wikipedia is supposed to be "notable." Do I accurately state your position? But do you comprehend MY point - that this individual could be notable either as a forester or as a horse breeder, but that is something rather unique about this guy? Knowing what one is doing is not always true of rich people who go into horse breeding- Plenty of dilettantes who turn it all over to a manager and then collect the trophies - Brown was not one of these, he actually knew what he was doing. I'd like to see a way out of this dilemma that alleviates my concerns - that his notability today is more for his horses than for his forestry, but in his own time, he also made very significant contributions in that field as well. No clue what you mean by a "show-stopper." It's one stupid word and I think it matters. Why does there need to be a pissing match about it? If there is a middle way here to address both our concerns, I'm all ears. My handy thesaurus gives me "remarkable, important, significant, exceptional..." etc., which are a little too strong in my opinion. But work with me here. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]