Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 9, 2022

image height

xaosflux, in light of this discussion, i thought you might like to know that this blurb has an image that is taller than usual, though not quite as tall as the one that originally ran with the speed of light blurb. admittedly, i personally do not have a screen as wide as yours, but i figured that if you think this image may be problematic for people with wide screens, it might be better to bring it up now rather than on the day the blurb runs. dying (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying thank you for the note, some people seemed fine with it so I certainly won't "fight" against it, but wonder if a cropped version of that image would suffice? Here is an example with 20% of the bottom cropped: 1. Pings to Wehwalt and Z1720. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concerns with using the cropped image xaosflux linked to above. Pinging @Ealdgyth and Agricolae: as they are the original FAC nominators, and their input might be helpful. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note the actually cropped version is not currently published (it is in the version history of the file on commons) - if that strategy is going to be taken the cropped one can be forked on commons, perhaps to File:Bayeuxtapestrywilliamliftshishelm-cropped.jpg. (We'd never do that if this was for the featured picture, but this is just to help illustrate the featured article). If you think something is lost for readers here, dealing with the uneven MP space is probably better. Ping me if you want me to do the fork and crop. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the TFA scheduler for September, I don't have strong views on the subject. Best to notify the FAC nominators, {{uEaldgyth}} and Agricolae.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was Ealdgyth.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

death date

i have removed the specific death date that was mentioned in the lifespan at the start of the blurb because i believe the current practice is to not explicitly mention a specific death date unless the death itself is notable, even if the blurb is running on an anniversary of the death, as mentioned here. william appears to have died during a campaign due to sickness or a riding injury, and the blurb for john, king of england, who died during a campaign due to dysentery, also did not mention a specific death date.

although i already mentioned the above in a comment in my copyedit, for transparency, i also wanted to explicitly mention it here on this talk page, as i am aware that the addition of the death date was requested in the tfa/r nomination, which was closed with its inclusion. i personally have no preference regarding its inclusion or exclusion, and would not mind being reverted.

courtesy pinging the participants and closer of the nomination: Z1720, Edwininlondon, Gog the Mild, truflip99, and Wehwalt. dying (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention date of death

It does spark a morbid curiosity that the first and most recent English monarchs are both adorning our main page because of their deaths, but besides this, I do think it would be somewhat useful to specify the full date of William's death (as it is lesser-known), even if just to say "this happened 1,000 years ago, we're not capitalising on anything by featuring his article". Pinging the above-mentioned participants and the user who removed the date of death; @Z1720, Edwininlondon, Gog the Mild, Truflip99, Wehwalt, and Dying: Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]