In Category:Featured articles but not on Wikipedia:Featured articles

  1. Β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid
    Inquired at WP:VPT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Featured articles but not in Category:Featured articles

  1. β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

Redirects in Wikipedia:Featured articles

  1. Albert, Prince Consort --> Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
    Fixed,[1] but did not re-alphabetize, as whether there is, or what the alphabetization scheme there is unclear. Perhaps one of the @FAC coordinators: will opine and fix, as there's a jumble thoughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That list was a bit of mess -- granted royalty is always a pain with titles, forenames and surnames competing for emphasis, commas and other punctuation, but I think it's better than it was now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych --> Crucifixion and Last Judgement Diptych
    @Ceoil, Victoriaearle, and Ravenpuff: this looks like the change was in the wrong direction, per this source; please check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sandy, I saw it and don't understand why it was moved. It was correct. There's a good argument that the article title shouldn't be in italics b/c it's an object - hence, "diptych" - but that should be raised on talk. A unilateral page move isn't ideal. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I saw as well ... maybe the Diptych portion in the lead should be lowercase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, tricky. I would have preferred a discussion. I've checked two books on my shelves - Craig Harbison has triptychs and diptychs as part of the titles & capitalized. Maryan Ainsworth from the Met leaves out the diptych, so it's Crucifixion and Last Judgement. I have other books to check but as it happens they're under dropcloths at the moment and I'm on my way out <sigh>. Can we put it back and have some time to check sources? And also to check the move logs? It's possible there was an earlier move. Victoria (tk) 18:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenpuff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not Crucifixion and Last Judgement (diptych) (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be best to be able to survey the sources, which takes a bit of time & to discuss on the talk page. If it's Crucifixion and Last Judgement it needs to be disambiguated but the attribution is isn't definitely van Eyck (if I remember off the top of my head - at least not both panels). I've never seen it called Crucifixion and Last Judgement (diptych). It's a 600 year old object that doesn't want to be stuffed neatly into modern internet usage rules. Hence the need to check sources & discuss. Pinging Johnbod too, since the discussion seems to be here. He'll know. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Met's online page currently uses The Crucifixion; The Last Judgment (link in the notes - AmEng of course) but I expect they have used different variations over the years, as no doubt have other sources. There's not really a "right" title (just several wrong ones). The move was supposed to be for capitalization, but shouldn't have been done without discussion, especially to an FA. I rather doubt a proper RM proposal would have passed. I'm inclined to agree with Victoria; move it back & if anyone wants to do an RM, well let them. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to let you all know that this page is overwritten every Monday, so if this isn't resolved within about five days, you might want to copy this discussion over to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Harbison's usage seems most WP:CONSISTENT with most of the painted (not ivory) diptychs at Category:Diptychs. Ham II (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delayed reply; was on a long flight. If we're using italics, it makes sense to treat it as a proper title, in which case "diptych" ought to be capitalized, otherwise it looks very jarring to my eyes. Otherwise I'm happy to restore the original capitalization, but remove the italic styling – i.e. treating "Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych" as a name but not a title. More detail is available at MOS:VATITLE. Also, as has been pointed out, we can be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles at Category:Diptychs. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it certainly is a title rather than a name, even when including "diptych". Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it in the text to Crucifixion and Last Judgment diptych which is generally what I'm seeing in the sources. Ravenpuff this is a featured article and it was page moved and the main image changed without discussion or consensus. I've restored that image as it should be and fixed the text. Please move the page back and it seeing a lower case "d" is problematic, then open a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Disintegration (Cure album) --> Disintegration (The Cure album)
    Fixed,[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1989 (Taylor Swift album) --> 1989 (album)
    Fixed, [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More