Talk:Ludovic Antal

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Antal in 1968

• ... that in 1968 actor Ludovic Antal (pictured) recited a Romanian nationalist poem in front of tourists from Soviet Moldavia, causing them to flee for their bus for fear of a "provocation"? Source: (in Romanian) Nicolae Turtureanu, "Opinii. Glose la Eminescu", in Ziarul de Iași, June 15, 2021: pentru prima dată, după ani şi ani, [venise] un autocar cu turişti din Basarabia. Atunci şi acolo, actorul (cu voce de aur) Ludovic Antal a recitat - tot pentru prima dată în public - „Doina” („De la Nistru pân-la Tisa,/ Tot românul plânsu-mi-s-a” ş.a.m.d.). Basarabenii s-au speriat, au crezut că-i o... provocare, că vor fi anchetaţi, arestaţi (la întoarcerea în „Republică”) şi s-au repliat spre autocar. My translation: "for the first time in years, [there was] a busload of tourists from Bessarabia. There and then, actor Ludovic Antal recited - also for the first time in public - Doina ('From the Dniester to the Tisza,/ All Romanians have complained to me' etc.). The Bessarabians got scared, they thought it was... some provocation, that they would be investigated, arrested (upon their return to the '[Moldavian] Republic'), and rushed back into their bus". Technically, Bessarabia could also mean that they were from some parts outside the Moldavian SSR, but the reference to the SSR is clarified by Turtureanu's mention of "the Republic" -- in this context, "Bessarabians" is a totum pro parte.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/William T. Vinton

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ludovic Antal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Interesting detailed article, on plenty of good sources, foreign and offline sources accepted AGF. The image is licensed and shows him well. The hook works for me. - I wonder why we have US date format for a Romanian topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gerda! Concerning the dates: I got used to writing articles in the US spelling, including dates, back when there was no enforced "orthodoxy" that all of us east of the GMT need to follow British conventions; I also sound out the dates like the Americans do, in my mind, and it is distracting to have to focus on reverting them while I have to write them down (especially if the sources are newspapers that need to be precisely dated -- if I want to write fast and properly, I tend to reduce the variables that I could botch up and go with what is most natural to me). Let those who enforce the supposed rule also edit the articles and switch the dates around, if they must (they tend to do it either way). Dahn (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Understand ;) - I just wondered, no defense needed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Blue-linking

To complete my edit summary: a stylistic preference that appeared out of the blue (pun intended), and that supposedly requires us to remove a valid link at random, should be balanced against the anomaly of not linking a term that users may require in their search for info, and that we link in the text right next to the infobox. I would argue users who come up with, or endorse, such guidelines may be expected to consider functional issues and consistency before pet peeves (as a minor detail: I personally find it more annoying to see an unlinked term popping up in a sea of linked terms). Also, I note two contrary tendencies which never seem to communicate with each other, but which together wreak havoc on content I actually spent time creating: some users link every second commonplace term in the infobox (see the links on "musicologist" and "cultural manager" in Cornel Țăranu's infobox), while others use a random, never-properly-discussed, aspect of the stylistic guideline to advance their battle with a personal peeve, namely that there should preferably be no bluelinks next to each other (even if separated by commas!), to the point of removing links on obscure notions -- up to where they invite questions such is "what is the point of even having bluelinks, if we're not using them predictably?". Dahn (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, all of these are FAs promoted this year: John Littlejohn (preacher), William Y. Slack, Dorothy Olsen, Jamie Kalven, Ian Carmichael. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The aversion to bluelinks being side by side is sometimes warranted (for instance when three separate words in a sentence are each linked to one article). However, nobody seems to have realized that the guideline has been (re)written to recommend the removal of links in cases such as "Fushë-Krujë, Drač County, Kingdom of Serbia" (all of which links are clearly separated by commas, and clearly designate rather arcane concepts), and in particular nobody has noted that the recommendation has now been rehashed in that it warrants users who have this pet peeve to simply remove one link (the one in the middle). Had they been clearly shown this, most would probably reject this as absurd. I would wager that the people who endorse this approach, because they wish to objectify said pet peeve, are aware of this being the case, and that this is why they ignore (for now at least) the FA-level articles you mention, as these would instantly invite discussion about the absurdity of the guideline in its current form, and instead pick it up from the margins (i.e. articles such as this one), slowly creating the semblance of a supposed consensus. I don't have the follow-through to generate discussion about the guideline itself (talk about a thankless task!), but I would endorse anyone who wishes to test the supposed consensus on this. Dahn (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Well . . . — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)