This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
- This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add
{{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.
The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite Talk 19:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC) [reply
Pig-faced women, generally having a body of a human but the face of a pig, appeared without warning in Holland, England and France in the late 1630s. Some people thought that these often rich women were under a magical curse, in which they could be beautiful to their husbands and ugly to the world at large, or pretty outside the pen but porkers to their men. This curse was attributed to the fathers' mistreatment of a beggar. Eventually, however, the factualness of the women began to be recognized, and case studies such as Griselda Steevens or the Sow of Marylebone began to circulate, and, in Paris, personal ads by lonely pig-faced women seeking male company were met with great interest. Portraits of these women were often published (an example is shown here), sometimes given away for free to interested parties. Shucksters sought filthy lucre by putting such women on display, though few could bear the naked truth of the matter. By 1924, however, interest in these women was at a low, and few believed that they had ever existed. Today the women are almost forgotten, although their spirits may live on. ( Full article...)
- For Fish Day! And all the points! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support cool choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-sourced FA promoted in 2010. High-level quality improvement effort by ]- Oppose, obviously. –
iridescent 05:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose. Changed to Oppose. Deferring to the wisdom of the original FA nominator,
Iridescent:, do you have a more ideal date in mind for this article's future Main Page appearance? — Cirt ( talk) 06:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [reply
- Not really, but I was there for
iridescent 06:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- Understood, I certainly respect your views, especially for an article on which you were the significant contributor to help bring to ]
-
- Mixed feelings. Just because April 1 is so dramatic around here and the outside world knows it. Semi protection at the drop of a hat would be in order. I wouldn't be sorry to see it passed over and run it on July 12 as at least there would be more baseball fans … whatever the community decides is fine, but if they start misbehaving, I'd like it understood that a quick semi-protection is OK because I'm gonna do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, let's get this done, if possible, and respecting Bencherlite's judgement. I expect to be much more available to watch the article on April 1 than I will be on July 12 due to planned travel. It can be justified as the start of the baseball season if more relevancy is needed (actually the day before, wiki-time, I think, but what's a day?)--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mainly because I oppose all April Fool's Day hoaxes, which have made April 1st the worst day to be on the internet. I'd change it to support if the blurb were written to showcase a hoax or false belief, but I am on the record as being a curmudgeon who thinks that we shouldn't ever be deliberately spreading misinformation, even on April 1st. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, this is the very embodiment of "showcasing a hoax or false belief", unless you're under the impression that were-pigs really did once roam the streets. It's very well documented that a lot of people who should have known better feel for this particular hoax. –
iridescent 06:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose. Do nothing special for April Fools—we're an encyclopedia. Run the most boring article possible as a counter-point to the stupidity of past years. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I am not beholden to political correctness, and I believe in not censoring WP. I think that this is a perfectly acceptable article and topic to have as part of WP. However, with the controversies in recent months and years about female participation in WP editing and the status of articles about female writers, scientists, artists, etc., and considering that the April 1st main page presentations typically get much more attention that those of the other days of the year, I think that we will be potentially hurting our overall project if we purposely use this article and blurb, regardless of how well-written or sourced. KConWiki (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Iridescent, Everyking, 0x0077BE and KConWiki. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per
Wha? 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose per avoiding potential systemic bias against women. Any other day but April 1 I would not oppose, but this timing could be viewed as WP promoting the notion that ugly or overweight women are a joke. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
