do we know for certain that the pictured aircraft is a lockheed l-049 constellation? the infobox, file description on commons, and source all identify it as a lockheed constellation, but i am not familiar enough with the aircraft to know specifically whether it is an l-049. dying (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere, I have a collection of newspaper clippings I was going to use to put together an article on the airline. I'm not sure where it is at the moment, but the company never had a huge fleet of aircraft; off the top of my head I don't believe they ever had more than two or three. They started out flying DC-3's and then moved to the L-049 with higher passenger capacity. I don't believe I ever encountered any mention of a different aircraft type. While not necessarily a reliable source, a quick google search today turned up this which mirrors my recollection. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alternative version

version used in blurb and article

RecycledPixels, i did a bit of digging and figured out a few things.

• commons actually has another version of the same photo, in higher quality.
• the source for the other version of the photo titled the photo "Lockheed 049 N9414H", which presumably means that the aircraft is a lockheed l-049 constellation with registration number "N9414H". part of this registration number can be clearly seen in the photo.
• searching the faa registry for "N9414H" gives a result for a lockheed aircraft with model number 49-46.
• the aircraft featured in the infobox image of the "Lockheed L-049 Constellation" article had a registration number of "N90831", which a search on the faa site shows was registered to a lockheed aircraft with model number 49-46.

based on this information, i think it is safe to conclude that the image is indeed of a lockheed l-049 constellation.

by the way, although the other version of the photo is clearly of higher quality at full size, i don't know if the same can be said when comparing thumbnails. in any case, i thought i might mention the possibility of substituting the picture, in case it is seen as an improvement. admittedly, to me, both thumbnails appear to be of similar quality. dying (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the image you found is better, I have substituted that version in the blurb and in the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. thanks, RecycledPixels. dying (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• i admittedly don't know enough about mos:jobtitles to be able to confidently determine if "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions" is correctly capitalized. "United Kingdom" and "British" should obviously both be capitalized. should "King" and "Dominions" be as well?
  i assume that "King of the United Kingdom" is considered a formal title, and would be properly capitalized had it stood by itself. however, i am less certain whether "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions" is also considered a formal title, or if it is simply a description. the "Style of the British sovereign" article lists two english styles used by edward, reproduced below.

  by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

  by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

  assuming that we should base our interpretations of what is considered a formal title on the official style used by edward, if we wanted to explicitly mention the british dominions, would "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas" be the formal title? alternatively, could there be two formal titles, one being "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (or "King of the United Kingdom") and the other "King of the British Dominions beyond the Seas" (or perhaps just "King of the British Dominions")? if the latter is true, i assume that the issue can be easily resolved by replacing " and the British Dominions" with ", King of the British Dominions".
  alternatively, if "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions" is not considered a formal title, but we still wish to retain this wording, i assume "King" should be replaced with "king", but am less sure about "Dominions". the body of the "dominion" article uses "British Dominion" once and "British Dominions" once, but one of its navigation templates uses "British dominions". also, the use of "king" may be incongruent with the use of "Emperor" later in the same sentence, and i am not sure if this is okay.
  to be clear, i don't actually have a personal preference. i just want to avoid any issues with mos:jobtitles on the day the blurb runs.
• should the fact that edward was related to wilhelm be mentioned in the blurb? after reading the sentence about their relationship, one of my first thoughts was, "wait, weren't those two related?". i admittedly tend to avoid getting involved in deciding what to include in a blurb that has already been drafted, but i thought i might raise this issue because it almost seems like an error of omission, and because not only does the article lead explicitly mention it, but the blurb used for the article's first tfa appearance mentioned it as well. if it should be included, i would suggest replacing "with German emperor Wilhelm II" with "with his nephew, German emperor Wilhelm II,", following the same pattern used in the article lead and the earlier blurb.

courtesy pinging regular main page copyeditors Ravenpuff and JennyOz for consultation on the mos:jobtitles issue. (your input would also be appreciated on the issue of whether the familial relationship should be mentioned, though i am explicitly requesting help for the former issue as it is more complex and also potentially contentious.) dying (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dying, thanks for ping. Sorry but I can't give a definitive opinion. Jobtitles is an area I avoid because I see conflicting interpretations just about every day - "potentially contentious" is possibly an understatement:) You say you "just want to avoid any issues with mos:jobtitles on the day the blurb runs." Yes, that is the hope but I bet either - the modified personal title (German emperor Wilhelm II) and the unmodified office title (was King of the United Kingdom) - could/will be questioned/argued about on the day, no matter what is agreed beforehand. As I mentioned regarding another blurb recently, I think it is better for the blurb drafter, the FA nominator and yourself to discuss. That way, if anyone, who may or may not know what they're talking about, questions any aspect of the blurb at Errors, the patrolling admin/s can link them to that discussion.

Regarding whether nephew is included... that's also a question to discuss with Wehwalt and DrKay, who perhaps hasn't got around to checking the blurb yet, or has and is happy with.

Thanks again for all you do, especially with TFA blurbs. JennyOz (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz, avoiding mos:jobtitles issues is probably the smart thing to do. thanks for all of your work with the main page and associated featured content. (i miss you copyediting my articles, though it is my fault for not having had the time to produce any content for the main page recently.)

Schwede66 and Firefangledfeathers, i pinged you both because i believe you two are administrators who often deal with mos:jobtitles issues on wp:errors, and i wanted to get some additional input. does the lead sentence of this blurb look good, or does it need work? if you don't have an opinion, that is okay too. note that this blurb is scheduled to appear on the main page within three days. dying (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get this wrong too often and hence, I've decided to steer clear of MOS:JOBTITLES. Schwede66 08:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a look soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's possible to have a formal title that is not the official long form, but I don't know if "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions" counts, since I don't have much experience with British royalty. A quick search suggests it's somewhat common as a title. I think capitalization is fine. Stepping outside the guideline for a moment, I do think there's a reason to prefer that adjacent titles be capitalized consistently, so I would prefer not to see "king of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India". I've thought about bringing this up for discussion at WT:MOSBIO but haven't gotten around to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, i agree that, ideally, adjacent titles should be capitalized consistently. (there is the possibility of using "the king of the United Kingdom and the British dominions, and the emperor of India", but that admittedly seemed terribly unnatural to me.)

after reading your comment, it occurred to me that it might be useful to see how "king of the united kingdom and the british dominions" is generally capitalized in article space. as it turns out in this search, they are all capitalized in the same way that this blurb's lead sentence capitalizes the phrase (though one result uses a comma after "Kingdom"), so i assume that the matter has been largely settled in article space. apologies for not having thought of making this search earlier. thanks for looking into the issue for me. dying (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had two questions about this blurb. i had two questions about this blurb.

• would it be more appropriate to remove the parenthetical containing the hull number "ID-1541"? i think hull numbers are generally not mentioned in tfa blurbs. also, wp:ncship suggests to "not give the hull number or other disambiguation information unless it is immediately relevant". in addition, i feel that the hull number looks out of place because it is the only hull number mentioned in the blurb. (by the way, this source notes that uss kroonland's hull number was "SP-1541", so i am also not sure if "ID-1541" is a misreading of a source that used "ID" to denote that "1541" was an identification number.)
• i noticed that the blurb mentions that kroonland was "the largest passenger vessel to that point to pass through the Panama Canal" [emphasis added], while the article lead makes the stronger statement that the ship was "the largest passenger ship to date to transit the Panama Canal" [emphasis added]. while "to that point" suggests that kroonland was compared to all passenger vessels that had previously passed through the canal, i believe the lead's use of "to date" would mean that kroonland is also being compared to all such ships that have passed through the canal since. (see, for example, the definitions of "to date" in cambridge, in collins, in oxford, in webster, and in wiktionary.) i assume that the lead is incorrect, as i believe norwegian bliss set the most recent record, in 2018, but if i am missing something, should the blurb be changed to match the stronger claim in the lead? (note that the article body uses the wording "to that date", which matches the meaning of the wording used in the blurb.)

also, i wanted to note here that, although some may find "U.S. Army transport USAT" redundant, i think it is fine in this case because wp:ncship advocates including the prefix with the first mention of a ship's name, and i assume that many main page readers may not be aware of what "USAT" stands for. i am, however, aware of this error report which touched on a similar issue, so if the redundancy seems possibly contentious in this case, we could ping the participants of that discussion for additional input. dying (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]

I can really only respond to the point about "to that point". Kroonland is certainly smaller than most modern cruise ships, which routinely pass through the Panama Canal. It is perhaps a rather minimal point that it was the largest in 1915, when the canal had only been open a year, but there it is. It sounds like the lead may need modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, i thought i might mention that the fac nominator does not appear to have edited since 2022. offhand, i would suggest the removal of the hull number simply because it does not appear to be sourced in the article. i did notice that one of the sources used in the article refers to the ship as "USS Kroonland (ID # 1541)", which may explain why "ID" had been included as part of the hull number. dying (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there we should capitalize Speaker. The omission is likely to look very odd to the general readership, who are not familiar with the guideline. I try not to impose personal preference in such matters, which would probably be to capitalize more, but to find solutions that will get the blurb through its 24 hours without controversy. The use of "President" three times in a sentence seems excessive. The names of the US presidents are well known, I'd delete all three uses.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, those edits look good. i had only gone with the lowercase "speaker" because of the character limit. abbreviating "United States" obviates the issue. also, you are right about the use of "President" thrice in one sentence being a bit excessive, though i hesitate to assume that main page readers will recognize the names of the three presidents. i remember you adding text to a blurb to explain that kennedy was a u.s. president, in response to a report at wp:errors, and i suspect that kennedy is more widely known than mckinley garfield, arthur, or harrison. would the following rewrite work?

note that i removed "twice" to avoid suggesting that blaine served under three presidents twice. the word was redundant anyway, as the sentence lists both of his terms. dying (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)][reply]

i had three questions about this blurb.

• would this blurb benefit from an image crop? by default, {{main page image/TFA}} will resize images to be about 19600 pixels large, so the large margins in this image is taking up much of the allocated space. at right is a mock-up of how this image could be cropped, shown at roughly the size it would appear at if displayed on the main page.

  Looks good to me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SchroCat, Ravenpuff has replaced the image with a cropped version, provided courtesy of PawełMM, at the graphics lab. apologies for the delay. when trying to replace the image earlier, i discovered that there was a bug somewhere in the code for the {{main page image/TFA}} template.

  basically, the issue is that, although {{#invoke:main page image|width|Agar and Burgess in the Guards' Department of the Train (cropped).jpg}} returns 181 pixels, without the hardcoded value, {{main page image/TFA}} would have set the width of the thumbnail to 140 pixels due to the bug, as seen here. (more details can be found here [perm].)

  i had been hoping to find the bug and have it fixed before this blurb fell under cascading protection, to avoid having to hardcode an appropriate width in order to compensate, but it seems like this will not be the case. dying (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• was tester actually arrested at any point? both the blurb and article lead mention that he was, though the article body notes that he could not be arrested while living in sweden.

  Yes, on his return from Sweden. I've clarified this in the text. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  looks good. thanks, SchroCat. dying (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• also, Wehwalt, pursuant to this comment by Dank, i have generally been trying to make sure that blurbs largely associated with one location (or sometimes several locations) explicitly mention the countries in which they are located, with the caveat that, during the months Gog is coordinator, i try to avoid adding such mentions if they weren't already present in the article lead, pursuant to this discussion. (note that i'm treating Gog's preference as an exception to the rule, as opposed to the rule that allows for Dank's exception, simply because Dank mentioned the general practice to me here first.)
  following this standard, i would have normally added explicit mentions of france and england to the blurb. however, in this specific case, i also noticed that Gog was the one who drafted the blurb, and i know that Dank has mentioned not really having a preference if he didn't draft the blurb himself. do you have an opinion on the issue? in general, i don't have a personal preference. in this specific case, one could argue that it might be useful to mention that folkestone is in england because it presumably isn't widely known, though one might also argue that it needn't be mentioned because rail service from london to paris presumably only runs through england and france, and "Folkestone" doesn't sound french.

Rather than express a preference, I will wait and see how it works out in practice. I had added a "U.S." to the March 14 blurb even though it does not appear in the article. Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me, Wehwalt. dying (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An anti-aircraft gun in 1943, assigned to defend Fremantle

i had trouble figuring out why this blurb was drafted without an image. there seem to be a number of public domain photos used in the article, and the blurb is currently short enough that length shouldn't be an issue. i eventually found this comment, which seems to suggest that, at the time this blurb was drafted, some of the blurbs were deliberately drafted without an image. i assume that the intention was to leave the selection of an image to a later date. is that correct? if so, i'd propose using the infobox image with a caption based on the one used in the article, as seen at right. dying (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I had trouble ...": it means nothing one way or the other if a blurb that was written a while ago doesn't have an image. By the standards of 2019, we could almost always find an image, so I wasn't thinking of that as a major problem to solve. But standards have changed to some extent since then. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images are actually of the events in the article, so I could go either way on including one. Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D, it's good to see one of your articles here and I liked your edits ... but you're up to 1140 characters now and the max is 1025. Can you trim something? - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: How's it looking now? Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was 1045, now 1009, see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, i just realized that, although the fac nominator drafted a blurb for this article at tfa/r, a different blurb is scheduled to run. should i copyedit the current blurb, or the one that was drafted for tfa/r? dying (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dying, I much prefer my blurb, though coming back to it now, I think adding mention of KMO-TV and KTVW into it is necessary. The one at TFA/R has some errors in grammar, and it glosses over Clover Park's ownership tenure—a very, very unusual event. I also have, instead of the logo, a photo of the studio building that is usable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, if Wehwalt is also fine with using your version of the blurb, would you mind posting an update of the draft with the additional mentions of kmo-tv and ktvw? by the way, for the main page, i would suggest a tighter crop of the photo for the building, as seen in the mock-up at right, though cropping it isn't necessary if you'd prefer the image uncropped. dying (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the other blurb being used. Odd I did not see it or I would not have bothered to write one. Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying if you feel receivership is foreign enough to need a link, go ahead. It's fine... the "as KTVW cheaply" really sounds weird, but I'll respect your reasoning. Cramming a station history, especially this one, into a blurb is not easy. The Nexstar-Tribune merger is indeed omitted for space. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dying: regarding your insertion of another blurb, I was reminded some time ago that where you copy over a blurb from elsewhere, per WP:CWW you need to put a link and a notation that you should see the source page for attribution, for copyright purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Wehwalt, you are absolutely correct. i had figured that providing the diff to explain the edit was sufficient, but it is probably better to explicitly point out the source of the material in an edit summary. i believe i have now provided the proper attribution with this edit.

there was another time when i had replaced a blurb with one written by someone else, and although i had noted at the time that i did so on the talk page, i had not done so in the summary of my original edit. i have now added an edit summary to make the credit explicit in the history.

thank you for pointing this out. dying (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Sammi Brie, that was actually the phrasing i had the most trouble with, so it could definitely use some work if you think it sounds weird. when copyediting, i try to keep as much of the original wording intact as i can, so with the limit of 1025 characters in mind, i was mostly playing with "who cheaply ran it as KTVW", "who ran it cheaply as KTVW", "who ran it as KTVW cheaply", and similar variants with commas, such as "who, cheaply, ran it as KTVW", "who ran it cheaply, as KTVW", and "who ran it as KTVW, cheaply". (i admittedly asked you to update the draft because i was having trouble with this issue.) if you have a good idea for a replacement but need some extra space and have trouble finding a few characters to drop, i think "Due to financial exigencies" could be replaced with "Due to finances".

also, i ended up adding the link for "receivership", as i admittedly don't think i was familiar with the concept until well after i had become an adult. thanks, Sammi Brie. dying (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

would a link to the "Women's suffrage in the United States" article in the first sentence, rather than to the "women's suffrage" article, be more appropriate? the link immediately before targets the "Abolitionism in the United States" article rather than to the "abolitionism" article, and a later link targets the "Woman's club movement in the United States" article, so it seems to me that the links assume a u.s. context. note that there is currently another link later in the blurb that does actually target the "Women's suffrage in the United States" article, so if the link in the first sentence is changed, the later link should probably simply be dropped to conform with mos:dl. dying (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any view on the matter. Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine, I'll make the change. Good suggestion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. thanks, Ganesha811. dying (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Amsterdam Metro stations, it was ranked fifth by usage in 2018 works for me (assuming that something was published that could be seen as a ranking). On the other question, I take "redone" to mean "done, when it had already been done at least once before". - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 renovation mostly focused on the emergency exits of the station and some tasks were redone before the entire thing was completed. I have added a few more sentences to the article to clear up the confusion of this. The 2017–2018 renovation is a completely separate renovation of the entire station not influenced by the previous one (all stations on the line had a similar renovation around this time). Also note that this was one renovation that was spread out in phases and took a little over a year, not two different ones. I don't think the hyphen is that much of a problem, though the suggestion of Dank is an option to eliminate the issue. I have no objection if anyone wishes to correct or copyedit the blurb with this information. Styyx (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh! Styyx, it looks like i misinterpreted what "during 2017 and 2018" meant, and somehow kept that misunderstanding while reading the article body. thanks for correcting me! to avoid having other readers making the same mistake as i did, would it help to replace "during 2017 and 2018" with either "from 2017 to 2018" or "between 2017 and 2018"?

also, thanks for the clarification regarding the timeline of the repairs done in 2011. would the following rewrite make this more clear in the blurb?

dying (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change it to "between 2017 and 2018". "from 2017 to 2018" is popular, but I don't use this in my own writing on Wikipedia; I think the "from" suggests a longer time range than parts of two years. "in 2017 and 2018" works. "The 2017–2018 renovation" (as Styyx writes above) is becoming more common both on and off Wikipedia (and because of that, I don't bother to change it when I see it), but personally I don't use it; IMO it still suffers a bit from ambiguity problems. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh! Dank, i had no idea that there was an issue with the "between x and y" construction. is it because, in this case, x and y are adjacent years, meaning that there is technically nothing between those years?

I'm just saying I've seen a lot of complaints over the years about that, maybe for the reason you're giving. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had admittedly never considered this possibility until now. by the way, regarding your remark on the use of "from", i once swam all the way from the atlantic ocean to the indian ocean. to accomplish this, all i did was swim in the waters around cape agulhas.

Styyx, thanks for addressing the issue with your edit to the blurb. it was a brilliant idea to simply explicitly state the months to avoid suggesting that the renovation took nearly two years. dying (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had three questions about this blurb.

• is it proper to capitalize "Mutiny" in "Nore Mutiny"? the featured article consistently capitalizes it, but the targeted "Spithead and Nore mutinies" article generally does not. i don't have a personal preference, but i wanted to raise the issue because whether or not capitalization is used for nouns referring to military incidents can be contentious.
• should "combated" be spelt as "combatted"? i don't know enough about the word to know if a certain spelling of the word should be used in certain contexts, but i do know that the subject of the article is british.
• in any case, is usage of "combated" in this situation proper in the first place? from the description in the article body, i wasn't sure if richardson actually saw any combat during the mutiny.

Responding in order:

• Both styles receive use, but I agree that for the sake of consistency it makes sense to swap to lower case
• I think the spelling is correct; the Oxford English Dictionary seems to like it, at least
• Stealing from the OED: "To take action to reduce or prevent (something bad or undesirable); to struggle with or against (something)." I think the usage of the word is correct in this instance

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe, i have edited the blurb to reflect your change to the article lead. thanks for addressing these issues! dying (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had four questions about this blurb. apologies in advance for the length of this comment.

• the page for will tippin was turned into a redirect last year after this afd. to conform with wp:mpnoredirect, i've replaced the redirect in the blurb to link directly to the "List of Alias characters" article. i also noticed that the target article doesn't really discuss tippin in much detail: the character is mentioned in a few sections, but there isn't a separate section focused on the character. in this case, would it be better to simply drop the link, to avoid confusing readers who may be expecting a more extended discussion of tippin? there is already a link later in the same sentence to the "Alias (TV series)" article, which has a brief paragraph describing the character.
• is it accurate to state that "Cooper wrote, produced, directed, and starred in A Star Is Born" in 2018? the film was released in 2018, though from the article on the film, i got the impression that filming largely occurred in 2017, and that the initial script had already been drafted by 2012. i admittedly can't tell from that article when cooper made his contributions to the script, and the featured article does not appear to give a timeline either.
• to me, the wording "winning for Maestro for Best Actor" seems a bit repetitive, since there doesn't seem to be a need to use "for" twice. would the phrasing "winning Best Actor for Maestro" be an improvement? of course, if this change is implemented, i would recommend a similar change for the six other alternatives as well.
• note that i have replaced "Best Director" with "Best Picture", because cooper was not nominated for the former category, while maestro was nominated for the latter. was there a reason why the awards were originally presented with best actor first, best director second, and best original screenplay last? i ask because my replacement may have violated this order. offhand, i think it would make the most sense to order them in the same order the awards are presented. historically, i think best original screenplay is generally the first of the three to be awarded, followed by best actor, and then best picture. note that, although it can be argued that the winners of the best picture category are films rather than producers, i think the current wording is okay because the recipients of the awards are the producers, though i am obviously open to alternative wordings if anyone has a better suggestion.

He [[List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper|has received]] twelve [[Academy Awards|Academy Award]] nominations{{#switch:{{#ifeq:no|{{lc:<!--
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________

        administrators: to update the blurb, replace the appropriate "no" below with "yes"

   if cooper won best actor,               replace the "no" immediately to the right with "yes"   -->no}}||a}}{{#ifeq:n<!---->o|{{lc:<!--
   if cooper won best picture,             replace the "no" immediately to the right with "yes"   -->no}}||p}}{{#ifeq:n<!---->o|{{lc:<!--
   if cooper won best original screenplay, replace the "no" immediately to the right with "yes"   -->no}}||s}}<!--
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________   -->

| a   = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] for ''Maestro''
| p   = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]] for ''Maestro''
| s   = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
| ap  = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] and [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]] for ''Maestro''
| as  = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] and [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
| ps  = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]] and [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
| aps = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]], [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], and [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
}}. {{TFAFULL|Bradley Cooper|Bradley Cooper}}

to demonstrate how it works, i've provided eight test cases below. for example, in the case where cooper has won best actor and best original screenplay, the code would be modified to look like the following.

He [[List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper|has received]] twelve [[Academy Awards|Academy Award]] nominations{{#switch:{{#ifeq:no|{{lc:<!--
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________

        administrators: to update the blurb, replace the appropriate "no" below with "yes"

   if cooper won best actor,               replace the "no" immediately to the right with "yes"   -->yes}}||a}}{{#ifeq:n<!---->o|{{lc:<!--
   if cooper won best picture,             replace the "no" immediately to the right with "yes"   -->no}}||p}}{{#ifeq:n<!---->o|{{lc:<!--
   if cooper won best original screenplay, replace the "no" immediately to the right with "yes"   -->yes}}||s}}<!--
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________   -->

| a   = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] for ''Maestro''
| p   = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]] for ''Maestro''
| s   = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
| ap  = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] and [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]] for ''Maestro''
| as  = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] and [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
| ps  = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]] and [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
| aps = , winning [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]], [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], and [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]] for ''Maestro''
}}. {{TFAFULL|Bradley Cooper|Bradley Cooper}}

this modified code then produces the following.

to avoid taking up too much space, i will simply show here the results for the other seven test cases, while the code used to produce them can be seen by reviewing the code for this comment.

as someone who is unafraid of encountering code, i personally think this makes the process simpler and less prone to errors, as there are only three switches to flip, and no need to be careful of what is being copied and pasted. however, i don't think i am qualified to determine if this holds for anyone else, so i thought i might propose the code here. i can also explain anything confusing about the code to anyone interested, although i don't think understanding it is necessary to use it. dying (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go implement it. What would you advise that I say to Talk:Main Page about how to use it? I will note in advance I don't plan to watch the Oscars.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dying? Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implemented. Wehwalt, i'd admittedly hesitate to put a request for assistance on wt:mp because i am not sure how experienced the average administrator is with editing content on the main page, though i think it might be useful to see if any of the usual administrators at wp:errors is planning to watch the academy awards ceremony that night and is also willing to update the blurb if cooper wins. i am hoping that the instructions in the invisible comments in the blurb are clear, as the whole point was to reduce the possibility of human error. in any case, i think it would be a good idea for the administrator who decides to take on the responsibility to test out the code with the preview button before the day of the ceremony.

also, FrB.TG, thanks for your edit to the blurb. dying (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like I'd better do it then. I don't enjoy the Oscars and haven't watched them for years, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Also, it's possible that questions or disputes may arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, thanks for doing this. admittedly, in recent years, during the academy award ceremony, i have generally had tasks of higher priority to attend to, so i appreciate your sacrifice.

by the way, it occurred to me a few hours ago that it would have been possible to write a script that regularly checked the "96th Academy Awards" article and sent you an alert somehow if a relevant edit was made. unfortunately, this idea obviously came too late to have made a difference today, but i am noting it here in case a similar situation comes up in the future. dying (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry we didn't get the chance to implement it. I was sitting with my finger by the button all three times. For the last, I just had written in the phrase and was not going to use your template, I would have at the end substituted in wiki text for your template in any case. Perhaps a similar case will arise again. Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sagan with a Viking lander mock-up

Carl Sagan with a mock-up of a Viking lander

i had five questions about this blurb.

• although sagan is identifiable in the lead image of the article, his appearance in the blurb's thumbnail is so small that it is difficult to see any of his distinguishing physical characteristics. without a caption, i had thought that the blurb i was about to read was about space exploration or something similar, and that the human figure was of no relevance. as i am assuming that the image was chosen to feature sagan (as opposed to the lander mock-up or death valley), would it make sense to crop the image to make sagan more identifiable in the thumbnail? at right are two mock-ups of how this image could be cropped, shown at roughly the sizes they would appear at if displayed on the main page.
• laplace appears to have made similar statements in 1810 and 1814. is there a reason why the blurb and article lead both mention the later date rather than the earlier one?
• flournoy does not appear to be mentioned at all in the article body. is there a source for the assertion about him in the blurb?
• should "a year prior to Sagan", used both in the blurb and article lead, be replaced with "two years prior to Sagan"? the article body states that sagan first used the phrase in a washington post interview in 1977, and that truzzi's publication in parapsychology review appeared in 1975. the cited quoteinvestigator source reports that sagan's version was published in december, and truzzi's version in late 1975, so it looks like sagan's interview appears closer to two years after truzzi than to either one or three years after truzzi. (by the way, the quoteinvestigator source mentions that truzzi's wording appeared in a letter rather than an article, which appears to be similarly asserted by this article published in philosophia.)
• since the blurb mentions that truzzi published a version of the aphorism some number of years before sagan first did, but also only mentions sagan's 1979 book rather than his 1977 interview, i worry that main page readers may be misled into thinking that truzzi's publication appeared two years later than it actually did. to avoid this, would it be better to replace "who used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca's Brain" with "who first used the phrase in a Washington Post interview in 1977"?

i had two questions about this blurb.

• i was unable to find anything in the article body supporting the statement that the 8,000-mile network was southern's "greatest extent until the 1950s". did i somehow miss it?
• does one serve on the united states railroad administration (usra), or work for the usra? the blurb and article lead both use the phrasing "on which Harrison served", while the article body states that he "worked for the USRA". i don't know enough about the usra to determine if both phrasings are appropriate. to me, if one serves on x, this means that one is a member of x, and i cannot tell if the usra is something that one can be a member of. similarly, i think one can serve on the board of a company, but perhaps not serve on the company itself if the company does not consist of members.

• • Feel free to delete the 8000 bit - the books I used for this are packed up and I can't even begin to go hunting for them. As for the USRA - it was a ... odd .. beast. It was a government body/sorta that ran the US railroads during WWI. Both descriptions will work for Harrison - you'll just sorta have to deal with the ad-hoc nature of the thing. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • sounds good, Ealdgyth. i have removed ", its greatest extent until the 1950s" from the blurb, but have left the rest of the sentence intact, as the other details are cited in the article body. yeah, it seems like the usra was an interesting experiment. thanks for confirming that both wordings are fine. dying (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My oversight on the talk page, fixed. Let me know if you see any more of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had two questions about this blurb.

• the wording "extra-inning game" seems to be far more common than "extra innings game", and is also the wording used in this cited sabr source. in addition, there is a clear preference on wikipedia for using a hyphen in "extra-inning game", while whether "extra innings game" should also use one is unclear. would it be more prudent to replace "extra innings game" in the blurb with "extra-inning game"?
• i feel like the statement that rommel "never won another game" should be somehow qualified. the article doesn't seem to explicitly mention it, but seems to suggest that rommel later played games in the minor leagues. also, the article on rommel explicitly states that the 18-inning game was his "final major league victory". in addition, i think something like "since" could be added to the end of the sentence to properly qualify the statement temporally, though from the standpoint of pragmatics, it isn't really necessary. could both issues be addressed with the following rewrite?

I've adopted extra-inning. He does seem to have won games in the minor leagues after this. I've reworded re final win, also in article as he did win at least six games in the minor leagues. Noted regarding SEAOFBLUE.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. thanks, Wehwalt. dying (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, it looks like a blurb was never drafted for this article, so i have attempted to draft one for you. i hope it covers all the points you think are necessary. feel free to copyedit it as you wish, or to completely replace it with your own blurb if you feel that my attempt was less than adequate. dying (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt and Dying: - I had written User:Hog Farm/Canal blurb for Gog the Mild earlier. I'm fine with either blurb, but would prefer the image of the actual canal construction over the map; I think it's more eye-catching. I do think that the fact that the river later re-routed to a similar path as the canal should be mentioned in the blurb though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh! Hog Farm, i should have known to check your user space first. sorry about that! i have now replaced my blurb with yours and did some copyediting. also, i felt that the blurb had not been clear enough about how exactly the river changed course, so i copied some of the wording used in the article lead to clarify. feel free to revert if there are any objections. by the way, i agree that the illustration of the canal's construction should be used in the blurb; i only used the map because i thought someone had already deliberately selected it. dying (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dying and Hog Farm. I have copy edited. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, i think moving the mention of the civil war to the lead sentence is a good idea. i believe there should be a comma after "Vicksburg, Mississippi" to conform with mos:geocomma. the changes look fine to me otherwise. dying (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was a bit surprised to see that we don't have a definitive birth year for kalven. considering the sort of details about his life that he has previously shared in his writings, i am assuming that kalven wouldn't mind being asked what his birth year is. it also seems like, as he is a journalist, it wouldn't be difficult for him to either publish his year of birth, or point out a publication for us that has already done so. dying (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As was I, but if it gets past FAC without it, I'm not clear that it is TFA's job to second-guess. Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying and @Wehwalt: I also was surprised that Kalven's birth year is not definitively known. As you can see in footnote 1, I checked every source and tried to reflect them as best as I could. The footnote itself was briefly discussed during FAC.

This article was in the DYK image slot. Prior to the day it was scheduled to run, I sent the Invisible Institute an email to let them know to expect Kalven's blurb and portrait to appear on the Main Page. That day came and went with no response from the Institute. So even if I email them again, I'm not confident that I'll get a reply. In any event, I'm reluctant to email the Institute or Kalven directly because even if they reply, I can't use that information because we don't allow unpublished sources. Edge3 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His marriage certificate to Patricia Evans lists his date of birth as October 16, 1948. His marriage date was August 27, 1977, which calls into question the statement from the article that At the time [of his father's death in 1974], Jamie was living in San Francisco with his wife, photographer Patricia Evans.. But it could have been his future wife Patricia Evans? That marriage certificate can be accessed by someone with a Wikipedia Library access at the following URL: [1]. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that certificate, they state residence in Chicago in 1977. That isn't reflected in the article. Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow, RecycledPixels, that is impressive work!

Edge3, is this sufficient evidence to drop the "c." from "c. 1948"? i don't know if the marriage certificate can be cited, but if not, i imagine that we could cite the sources consistent with the date on the certificate, and perhaps add a footnote listing those sources inconsistent with that date. the certificate could also be mentioned in an invisible comment or on the talk page, as a pointer for future editors questioning the birth year. dying (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the certificate can be cited. It's a primary source, but date of birth is just the sort of thing that primary sources are good for.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Impressive research! Thanks so much for finding that. When the source says, Jamie was living in San Francisco with his wife..., it's possible that the source was referring to "future wife" but simply said "wife" for simplicity.

I'm going to ping @Jo-Jo Eumerus, who conducted the source review, and @Dudley Miles, who brought up concerns about the birth year citations during the FAC.

I think the marriage certificate can be cited per WP:PRIMARY. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY urges "extreme caution", and it further says, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth" (emphasis in original). So while I think I can drop the "circa" from "1948", I don't think I should provide the full date of birth, nor should I provide date or place of marriage.

@Wehwalt: You mentioned that Chicago residency in 1977 isn't reflected in the article. I don't see anything in the article that is in conflict with the marriage certificate. The couple lived in San Francisco in 1974 during Kalven's freelance career, but subsequently moved back to Chicago to support his father's manuscript. We could potentially add this detail (about Chicago residency in 1977) to the article, but then I get concerned about the WP:BLPPRIMARY issue stated above. Let me know if you'd be comfortable with me adding this detail in. Edge3 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest asking at the BLP noticeboard. Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt That's not an option because WP:BLPN is reserved only for "disruptive editing in [BLPs] over an extended period". Fortunately, we do not have that problem in this case. Edge3 (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then what you said above about not using the month and day of birth or marriage sounds good to me. Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a "generally" before that sentence. I kinda wonder how well the average person remembers their birth year, keeping childhood amnesia in mind. I think you could write something "According to his own statements, Jamie Kalven was born in <foo>" if you can find a tweet or an interview or something by him. Secondary sources disagreeing about a basic fact is not uncommon and one of the reasons why I don't warm to the idea that even basic non-analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis facts should be cited to secondary sources. But here, we'd need a primary source first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Would you still keep the footnote that cites the secondary sources, including the ones that disagree with the actual birth year? Or is it enough to cite only the primary source? Edge3 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies in this case: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." We have a reliable source for his full date of birth so we should use and cite it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB states that we include the full date of birth only when widely published by reliable sources. Here, we see it printed only in a marriage certificate, so there's a strong presumption in favor of Kalven's privacy. Accordingly, I've made edits adding the year of birth and year of marriage. Hopefully those edits are appropriate. Edge3 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. thanks, all, for helping out in resolving the birth year issue. dying (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had three questions about this blurb.

• i admittedly know virtually nothing about how to determine what should be used as the title for an article on birds, but i did notice that the url for the cited handbook of the birds of the world alive source on the species, which apparently referred to the bird as the "Black-necked Grebe" in 2017, now forwards to a page on birdsoftheworld.org which calls it the "Eared Grebe". is "eared grebe" the more common common name now? the article mentions both common names.
• the "grebe" article defines the term as birds in the order podicipediformes, which only has one family, podicipedidae. although this means that one can state that this grebe belongs to the grebe family, or that it belongs to the grebe order, and be correct in either case, would it be better to use the latter wording to make it more clear that "grebe" is being defined in wikipedia as members of an order?
• is there a reason why, when discussing the bird's diet, the blurb, article lead, and article body all treat "small frogs and fish" as one item, and "tadpoles" as another? admittedly, i would have stated "tadpoles, small frogs, and fish" rather than "tadpoles, and small frogs and fish".

Hyphenation of compound modifiers is often down to the existence of a house style (or lack thereof) – for instance, I've noticed that The Economist likes to use hyphens even if the phrasing would still be clear without. I suspect that the hyphenation of "future war serial" is because it is more susceptible to misinterpretation than "future war genre" (why might we expect new war genres in the future?) but I agree that we can easily standardize the use of the hyphen in such cases, especially since we have a style guide that recommends it (MOS:HYPHEN). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it is consistent in terms of when the hyphen is used or not. The difference between "future-war story" and "future war genre" is that in the former the name of the genre is used as a description and in the latter the name of the genre is used as itself ("future war genre" is "genre: future war", but "future-war story" is not "story: future-war" – with or without hyphens). That doesn't mean we can't add or remove hyphens throughout, but I don't think it's necessary as I don't think this is a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh! wow, TompaDompa, i admittedly would have never guessed that that was the reason, but it is consistent, and i do understand it (even though i admittedly had to read your comment maybe three times before it clicked). my guess was the same as Ravenpuff's, though i had trouble reconciling the lack of a hyphen in "future war genre" because i could easily imagine new war genres in the future, such as an ai war genre, a climate war genre, a corporate war genre, a genetic war genre, an information war genre, a simulated war genre, and a temporal war genre. (that last one might also be a past-war genre, though.) anyway, i am fine with how the blurb is currently, so i am happy to leave it as is. thanks for the explanation, TompaDompa! dying (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had three questions about this blurb.

• the blurb doesn't use a hyphen in "semiaquatic", but the article lead does. i didn't conform the blurb to the article lead because (1) the targeted article also doesn't use a hyphen; (2) the featured article only uses the word once, so conforming the lead to the blurb would also make the two consistent; and (3) i wasn't sure if this was a controversial point. is there a preference for one or the other?
• does "mostly marine mammals" mean that (1) most, but not all, of the pinniped species are marine mammals; or that (2) pinnipeds mostly live in marine environments? the fact that "marine mammals" is a link suggests that the former is meant, but the article appears to treat all pinniped species as marine mammals. perhaps a rewording is warranted if the phrase seems ambiguous.
• i couldn't find a source supporting the statement that "[m]ales typically mate with more than one female". did i somehow miss it? the article suggests that alpha males typically mate with more than one female, but i couldn't tell if this was also true for most of the males.

When I catch something like this, I just add a link to the previous nomination; it seems a little confusing to me if a lot of older stuff is added to a TFAR nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had two questions about this blurb.

• is there a source for the statement that the magazine's circulation fell below 50,000 "by the end of the 1930s"? the article body mentions that the circulation was around 40,000 to 50,000 when the magazine was sold in 1942, but doesn't seem to give any numbers for the 1930s.
• both the blurb and article lead appear to treat the last issue published in 1978 as the final issue before the magazine was "closed down", while the article body appears to treat the four issues published in 1979 by lifetime wholesalers as part of the magazine's "regular publication". is this a discrepancy that should be resolved?
  by the way, i am aware that the 1979 issues were discussed during the fac nomination, and that apparently not much is known about them, so i can understand if it is difficult to offer any additional information for clarification. i just wanted to note that, to me at least, the article appears to treat the 1979 issues inconsistently.

I think "end of the 1930s" is being used there as an approximate synonym for "1942", but to be more precise I've changed both the article and the blurb to make it clear that 1942 is when the circulation reached that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the 1979 issues, I've reworked the article text in a way that I hope makes it clearer that the Lifetime Wholesalers issues were a revival. I think that eliminates the discrepancy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. it is a bit unusual that the table includes the 1979 issues but not the later revivals, but that is a minor point, as the text makes it clear that the 1979 issues were considered to be part of a revival. thanks, Mike Christie! dying (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i recently realized that, although i wrote a note to myself to address the mos:tense issue in this blurb, i completely forgot to actually do so before publishing my copyedit. could someone please do so for me? i believe "Eye was" should be "Eye is", and "The collection crossed" should be "The collection crosses". the mcqueen blurbs here and here also follow this practice. dying (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Wehwalt. dying (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]