Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 9, 2023
.jpg)
The 1880 Greenback National Convention met from June 9 to 11 in Chicago to select candidates and write a platform for the Greenback Party in the presidential election. Delegates chose James B. Weaver (pictured) of Iowa for President and Barzillai J. Chambers of Texas for Vice President. The Greenback Party was a response to government policy tightening the money supply and returning to the gold standard. Many felt that issuance of "greenbacks" would improve economic conditions. Weaver, the favorite for the presidential nomination, won on the first ballot; Chambers, one of his defeated rivals, was his running mate. More tumultuous was the fight over the platform, as delegates from disparate factions of the left-wing movement clashed over women's suffrage and Chinese immigration. In the presidential election, the party received only about three percent of the vote, as Republican congressman James A. Garfield of Ohio triumphed. (This article is part of a featured topic: 1880 United States presidential election.)
capitalized titles
[edit]Schwede66 and Firefangledfeathers, apologies for this delayed response to the recent error report; i admittedly did not see the discussion until after the blurb had left the main page.
i think either case could have worked. the capitalization emphasizes that "President" refers to a specific presidency, that of the united states. mos:jobtitles does not require the title to be uncapitalized if it is being used to refer to "a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description", and i think that is the case here. that the change happens to better conform with mos:egg was admittedly incidental, as i don't think regular wikipedia readers would expect the blurb to link to "president (government title)" or something similarly generic; the main reason for the change was to conform with the article lead.
my current understanding is that, if two different stylistic choices are both considered valid, and the blurb uses one while the article lead uses the other, i should conform the blurb's style to that of the article lead. there was a recent discussion on the use of "Filipina" in the blurb versus "Filipino" in the article lead, and i had left the different spellings intact, figuring that the fac nominator may have made a stylistic decision to use a different spelling in the blurb. i believe the consensus was that, should something similar arise again, i should conform the blurb to the article lead, which is why i had done so in this case. is this an instance where i should have left the differing styles alone? dying (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I reckon it's water under the bridge, Dying. Nobody got hurt etc. Yes, in general, I'd go with the article lead as guidance. Articles, even if they are FAs, don't always have it right. I'd say if there is uncertainty, it's a good idea to start a discussion (I have that page on my watchlist). Frankly, I was surprised that nobody else had brought up this issue before I spotted it; it didn't have too many more hours to run by then. Schwede66 06:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Schwede66, i agree that, if there is uncertainty, it is a good idea to start a discussion. (incidentally, my list of recent contributions is filled with more of them than usual.) admittedly, though, in this instance, the copyedit seemed rather straightforward, and i actually had no idea it would be raised at wp:errors, so i hadn't thought to start a discussion.in any case, my reading of your comment at wp:errors is that you are saying that the titles should have been uncapitalized to conform with mos:jobtitles. can you explain your reasoning? i want to avoid any similar mistakes in the future. i will readily admit that mos:jobtitles is confusing enough that it took me years to understand, and would not be surprised if i am still misinterpreting something. dying (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Same disclaimer as Schwede66: these are old and small potatoes. I do think the positions should be in lowercase per JOBTITLES. Since "president" and "vice president" are both generic terms. The exception you quote above ("a title or position in and of itself ...") starts with "When a formal title for a specific entity". This would apply to the formal titles "President of the United States" and "Vice President of the United States". Unless I'm misreading, I guess the only outcome here is likely to be a minor ce to the article itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. Agree. Schwede66 22:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Same disclaimer as Schwede66: these are old and small potatoes. I do think the positions should be in lowercase per JOBTITLES. Since "president" and "vice president" are both generic terms. The exception you quote above ("a title or position in and of itself ...") starts with "When a formal title for a specific entity". This would apply to the formal titles "President of the United States" and "Vice President of the United States". Unless I'm misreading, I guess the only outcome here is likely to be a minor ce to the article itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Schwede66, i agree that, if there is uncertainty, it is a good idea to start a discussion. (incidentally, my list of recent contributions is filled with more of them than usual.) admittedly, though, in this instance, the copyedit seemed rather straightforward, and i actually had no idea it would be raised at wp:errors, so i hadn't thought to start a discussion.in any case, my reading of your comment at wp:errors is that you are saying that the titles should have been uncapitalized to conform with mos:jobtitles. can you explain your reasoning? i want to avoid any similar mistakes in the future. i will readily admit that mos:jobtitles is confusing enough that it took me years to understand, and would not be surprised if i am still misinterpreting something. dying (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)