User Talk: Viriditas

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

January music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Hazel in bloom near Leine, Döhren.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Three}}
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

... happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Mozart music for today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor ↗ (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13 ↗, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} do you ever listen to popular music? I've been listening to Daniela Andrade ↗ off and on for the last several weeks. There's something about her singing that touches me. It's not complex, it's very simple, but she's got this authentic approach that I like, as if she's singing her very last song each and every time. Hard to explain. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
:: I listened now, to Tamale, yes the simplicity is touching, and going to the basics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, that's a highly produced song, she has several others where her raw vocals shine through and you get a glimpse of her wider range as a singer. But yes, "Tamale" is fun, and I especially like the video, as it speaks to certain period in my life when I used to buy tamales from street vendors who were always older women. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Older women - did you listen/watch Isabella in my story? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, absolutely ''fantastic'' image of Podleś in the infobox. And it even dates back to 2010! You got lucky with that one. The use of "older women" in my comment was a playful contrast with Andrade's video, which shows younger women making the tamales. In the US, there is generally a culture of grandmothers, or as they are known here, the ''abuela ↗'', who sell these tamales on the city streets. There's also the play on the term "like my grandmother used to make" when it comes to food. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::: nice match to the Spanish island ↗ where I am - and what about the opera scene? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Amazing sound quality from 2014! Quite remarkable. I'm playing it here in my room and it sounds like I'm right there! I think the trick is the live mix, it's perfect. It sounds like I'm sitting in the orchestra. I love her coloratura contralto, and I hope this isn't a bad thing, but it's so low you can't tell it is a woman singing! Did she ever play male parts, as I understand that kind of thing was common at one point? Right now I'm getting really into ballet. I see that the opera-ballet has fallen out of fashion, with only four rarely performed. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: Funny question: the story mentions 2 women and 2 men, and in the first version (2024), there was one more woman and one more man. Had she been up for DYK none of that would have been "interesting" but what she did at age four ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, there is definitely a problem with hook style, but we've discussed this so many times, there's nothing more to say. I recently wrote two hooks that I thought were perfect, only to have the reviewer tell me they were too long and to rewrite a hook that others now think is not interesting because it is just sitting there, abandoned to the elements. Anyway, enjoy Spain and get off the internet! Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::: I did that without being asked - but in the meantime, ''your'' hook made it to prep, pictured. Today we have Bach, Mozart and Verdi on the Main page, but I enjoyed Spain, - actually trying to tackle Roque Niquiomo was a beyond what I can do easily, and I missed the top. Still enjoyed hike and views. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::''Kowtows''. Madame, I am at your service. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::: You can pick, Verdi ↗ or Nun ruhen alle Wälder ↗ ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::: You picked both: how generous, thank you!! Verdi: Image size is very easy to change, I was tempted to shrink it on the talk page but then thought that the discussion would outgrow it, which your post alone already did (at least on my display). We should not forget how different display is for different users. Some mobile users see first the first para of the prose, then the infobox below it, then the rest of the article. You will not get a happy photo of Verdi in mid-career because photography was at its beginning ;) - Little progress in the matter: N. didn't revert while Verdi was on the main page. Previous reverts came much faster. The belief of those who don't want an infobox is that it should go by the author(s)'s preference. My story today is about Jerome Kohl ↗ whose talk page is inspiring, in case you didn't visit yet. He reverted many infoboxes for composers because of the 2010 RfC of project composers, but later he wrote things like this ↗. - Verdi is a GA by Smerus, who wrote FAs Wagner ↗ and Chopin ↗, among many others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No worries. I think I might have found an error in the Nun ruhen alle Wälder article. You say the eighth stanza became used as an evening prayer for children, but that stanza is unclear and may be numbered differently in other versions. Please check to make sure. The eighth stanza in the article you wrote in the subsection "Text" may be different than the prayer that is used. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
{{od}} Interesting, that Marie Engle! - See music today, for people remembered, and the wedding anniversary of relatives who went on their honeymoon to Tenerife which I can see from La Palma on a clear day (not today). See places - I uploaded until 21 Jan. - Nun ruhen alle Wälder is also in music, and it was that recently that I noticed that it is part of the hymnal, because it took centuries for it to be accepted, and 13 more years to actually being sung (where I watch) ;) - I guess the majority of the songs in the book don't get sung at all or very rarely. - What I want to know about "a song" is who wrote it? when? how does it sound? what is it about? - and the one thing I don't care about at all is which important person didn't like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I agree that the emphasis on the King of Prussia isn't as unusual or interesting as it should be, but AGAIN, DYK does have that bias, such that it encourages the sensational, the surprising, and most importantly, the negative, which we know you don't like. The solution (or antidote) to this reoccurring theme (and the best way to avoid it since you don't like it) is to instead use a contrast between two or more different things ''in place of'' what can be interpreted as negative. This is interesting, because it has the same impact as negativity bias in terms of salience ↗. You can put this to the test in your own life. For example, people who wear bright colored clothing or unusual hairstyles will be noticed more than others. That's a simple example. So what makes ''your'' hook stand out? That's the question you want to ask. As a singer, what you find interesting will not be the same as non-singers, but you can find a place where non-singers and singers can agree. That's what you want to focus on in your hook. Negative hooks attract attention, but so does humor, wonder, and many other things. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:: On my way going out: I'll think about a reply, rather than rushing. What I came to say is that I'm fascinated by Richie Beirach ↗, who needs a few more refs (so had no time to expand the article about the lovely peaceful enduring song). Dont miss my story today, a 2013 DYK ;) - wrong day, but close: it was written for tomorrow's occasion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I love comments like this! I am putting together a Beirach playlist right now so I can have more to say to you later after I spend several hours listening to his music. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Thank you, that's great, especially since I don't have those hours, - I don't listen to music while hiking. Today was especially great, almond flowers and being above the clouds. - Look for Wind of Change ↗ in music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Pics or it didn't happen! Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::: I try to get them up chronologically, patience please. First comes enjoying the real thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

''Casablanca''-related personal anecdote

Some years back, I signed up for the Bonhams ↗ auction of ''Casablanca'' memorabilia. There were only two items even remotely within my financial reach: gambling chips and Sakall's waiter's jacket. Who wants generic chips? (Turns out a lot of people apparently; the pre-auction estimate was a couple of hundred dollars, but I think they went for a couple of thousand.) Anyway, it seems there were two of us vying for the jacket (it was online and in-person bidding, maybe phone bidding as well, so I'm not absolutely certain). My last bid was $3200 US, as I recall. That was the pre-auction high-end estimate, and didn't include the buyer's premium, shipping, etc. I bailed at that point, and the next bid of $3300 ($100 increments) took it. I've regretted my decision ever since. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Clarityfiend}} I would have gone for the waiter's jacket! I used to do thrift store hauls back in the 1980s. The things you used to be able to find were amazing, and so cheap. One of my fave finds of all time was a Playboy-style smoking jacket ↗ that looked straight out of Austin Powers ↗. It was really beautiful. I gifted it to a friend who admired it some time later, which is generally how I handle things I like. I tend to pass things on rather than to possess anything of value. Over time, I've given away almost everything I've ever owned. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
::Oh, behave! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Other America (speech)

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 19 January 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''The Other America (speech) ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech "The Other America" ↗''' is thought to have been influenced by a post-Keynesian economist ↗ and a democratic socialist ↗?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Other America (speech) ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Other America (speech) ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Desegregation of Atlanta schools ↗

Hello, following up on your offer at the Humanities Reference Desk ↗ to take a look at some of the claims in Draft:Desegregation of Atlanta schools ↗, especially the first two "context" sentences in the article, which seem false to me: {{tq|Georgia state law, passed in 1870, required racial segregation in schools with equal funding for black and white schools. Atlanta City Council failed to provide school buildings compliant with racial separation laws, so the American Missionary Association received state support for educating black students.}} If you do end up having a chance to take a look, thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Suriname0}} can you summarize why this was moved into draft space in the first place? Just want to make sure I understand the page history before I start getting into the spot checking. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::I'm starting with the original version.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Desegregation_of_Atlanta_schools&oldid=1317796701 ↗ Based on that version (let's start there), why was it moved to draft? It looks pretty good aside from some general formatting and grammar issues that are routine. There's a good chance I'm missing what you are seeing, so please be patient in your reply so we can both get to the same place. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi Viriditas, I moved it to draft for a few reasons: (a) undergrad student draft from a WikiEd course that had released a few other low-quality drafts, (b) heavy reliance on an undergrad thesis, (c) some copy that read like potential sloppy LLM use to me, and (d) I quickly checked two sentences and noticed that the cited source didn't verify the claim in the sentence (which also made me suspect sloppy LLM use). I kept it in draft because, as I mentioned above about the start of the History#Segregation section, the first two sentences appeared to me to be (1) false (or at least misleading) and (2) unsupported by the cited source. There was a brief discussion about the draft at User_talk:Wikivoyager22 ↗.
:::Ultimately, I had sufficient suspicion about the verifiability and accuracy of the draft and couldn't immediately verify the content, so I figured that was a perfect opportunity for incubation in draft space. Does that provide useful context? It also looks like User:Rich Farmbrough is looking at the draft now as well, as I see some recent edits and some work on the talk page.
:::Again, I'd like to emphasize that this is primarily a skill issue on my part; if you are familiar with the history of desegregation and the content seems accurate, you're more than welcome to BOLDly move it back to mainspace. I just didn't want to keep it in mainspace when I couldn't verify if the content was accurate (and had a few "circumstantial" reasons to think it wasn't). If I had the time, the first thing I would do is read ''Courage to Dissent'' so I have more context about the subject matter. Thanks again for taking a look at this! Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::The book is available chapter by chapter on TWL if you are interested, but for some reason the full book download appears to be disabled, which is odd, because it usually lets me download the full pdf from that site. It could be my browser as this kind of thing happened before a few months ago. Anyway, I haven’t yet spot checked the sources, but nothing about the text looked like LLM to me, quite the opposite in fact. The poor writing style looks human to me, which was the tell that a LLM was not used. When a LLM is used to write an article, the tell is that it relies on a limited set of phrases and vocab that most people don’t use in a repetitive manner. And it is within that set of repetition that LLM makes itself evident. Knowing nothing about the class or the student, this looks like someone who is planning to go to law school or is already in law school, as they write like an attorney. The headings were wrong from a MOS approach, which is easily fixed. Like I said, I have only glanced at the original draft, and nothing stood out to me as unusual. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::I was able to download the full PDF from an alternate source, happy to send it to you! Again, if you have time to take a look and/or move it to mainspace, that would be great. Suriname0 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, I have a copy. Just concerned that there's something wrong with TWL, as I've had many problems with it. Seems to have something to do with Firefox. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::This is a complex and very interesting area. Specifically the desire of various black factions to slow play desegregation is something that is not often covered, although it is in the sources. One of the issues with the article is that it seems to be too focussed on a bachelor's thesis which is about the 'resegregation' of Atlanta schools - a real phenomenon, but tangential to the main subject according to the name of the draft. I am unlikely to spend much more time on the draft. All the best: ''Rich Farmbrough'' 16:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC). 
:::::Thanks for looking anyway! Suriname0 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|the desire of various black factions to slow play desegregation is something that is not often covered}} Seems pretty much covered in civil rights literature. MLK faced great opposition from the Black community, and much later the NAACP. Part of the struggle the early civil rights movement had was trying to convince their own people to change the status quo. Inertia is the greatest enemy to change. This is nothing new. American white, conservative women helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment ↗. You may ask, why would women argue against their own right to freedom and opportunity? Within every movement you have reactionaries, people who benefit from the status quo and operate on the crab mentality ↗ to keep their own people oppressed. Happens in every ethnic group, religion, and social class. We saw it happen among poor whites who voted not once, not twice, but ''three'' times for Trump, sincerely believing that the money was going to trickle down to them any day now. One of the most popular photos on Reddit is an image of a dirt poor white family that lives in a ramshackle cabin that looks like it is about to fall down with massive "TRUMP" signs all over its exterior walls. These are the same poor whites who are literally dying for Trump by the thousands as he cuts their social programs and entitlements. These are the same poor white veterans who voted for Trump by the tens of thousands, a president who avoided the draft and has spent decades denigrating the military and its service members. This is no different. SSDD. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

February music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Crocus meadow, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Continuing from January, after a full day out: Beirach needs more refs, especially for the recordings. It seems like he has a complete list on the official website, but I can't access it. Can you, perhaps? The two facts marked - influence and his compositions jazz standards - also need refs or have to go. - For today's story, I picked a hymn distantly related to today's feast day (last year it was Bach's chorale cantata ↗ for the occasion). The hymn was pictured DYK on this day in 2019, and I got a bit nostalgic when reading Template:Did you know nominations/Im Frieden dein, o Herre mein ↗. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:I would move the unsourced bits to talk page intact, so others can look at them. I will return to that page later this week to try and help find sources. Yesterday, I listened to his 2017 album ''Live at Birdland New York'', which was recorded when he was 70 years old. I think it's remarkable that he could still play like that at his age. Also, his technique and approach to Jazz is somewhat unique, so it would take me some time to figure out how to describe it accurately and faithfully. One thing I did notice that stood out, is he gave a lot of freedom and opportunity to the musicians who played with him, more so than others, so he comes off as very democratic and open to collaboration. The other thing that stuck with me is that I didn't hear him improvise as much as I thought he would. He is very controlled and intentional, and draws from a bag of chops like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:: Thank you. Returned from another great day. I didn't want to nominate Beirach until Buchholz is off the main page, but now have to because it's seven days after his death was known. I'll nominate with only the referenced things, - plenty of detail. I know how to find refs for recordings, but would not easily find "influences" and "standards". "democratic and open to collaboration" sounds wonderful (quite generally so!), but would also need a ref if to be mentioned for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::One thing that has me curious: did he work out at the gym and lift weights? Playing piano with that kind of hand strength at 70 years of age is unheard of to me. If you find any information about his exercise routine (if any), please add it to the article. I find the topic of maintaining strength and agility in older musicians interesting. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: I saw no indication, and think that to keep playing alone trains. I nominated. Commented out the standards, will look for influence. Chick Corea - don't even know if it fits ... - I had no time yet to understand who wrote the article. Enjoying where I am too much ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for having approved Allan Ludwig ↗ with an interesting hook, although a short hook was on the table ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Congrats to the double hook below! What do you think about an infobox for the company? - What about the Wotan-hook ↗? - Beirach made it to the main page (after I spent an hour - after a pinnacle day on vacation ↗ - finding references for the albums that have an article ... for the formality of having everything sourced, - some are still commented out because I got too tired ...), so the time to reach readers with more information for him is now ;) - I'll make him my story today, now, and don't know yet which music too take for a sample. What would be your choice? For Jubilant Sykes ↗, I offered two. - For Verdi: there was a question left for you, about stewardship, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you. I will respond tomorrow. Trying to fix a source issue elsewhere at the moment, then going to hit the hay. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
::Nice work, Gerda. Love the improvements. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry, Gerda, I'm still behind. Will try to catch up on this soon. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
::: No problem, same at my end, took up a philosopher ↗, don't understand a line of some obits ... - Could you please take a quick look at the Wotan hook, perhaps suggest some compromise? "giant of a man but expressing tender emotions" (short for the reviewers proposal) is just too little - belittling that is - for his singular performance, especially as Wozzeck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Beirach: There's a rather long quote from a review in the article about the Lookout Farm album ↗, which seems a good summary of his/their collaborative style ("democracy in motion"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Tamás Vásáry ↗ today, who began his career with a Mozart concerto at age 8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Thank you for help to interest! - Today some 1510 carving ↗ from St. Valentin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::: ... only it didn't work as I hoped ... - Giants today, RD Helmuth Rilling ↗ and OTD Friedrich Cerha ↗ 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Today something new: a 100th birthday of someone alive, György Kurtág ↗! In 2004 I was there when he and his wife played for the Rheingau Musik Festival ↗ where he was the featured composer. They played as the 2019 DYK said, on an upright piano, - listen, the last piece was the same. - More pics uploaded, enjoy. And Rosiestep shows the latest cat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::That is what we call a well-fed feline. Looks like they never went a day without food. Also, their coat is well taken care of and healthy. This isn't any old restaurant cat, this is someone's baby. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::: I didn't say "old" ;) - if you look at the food you see that they feed people and the cat well, - cat still wanted some of my food, gorgeous surprise menu of local cuisine - listened to more Kurtág on radio. Did you see that 2019 DYK (for his wife, actually, - after I failed to bring her to ITN? What would they pick today? That he felt like a cockroach, compared to Ligeti and Stockhausen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for being you. Your consistency is admirable. I can set my watch to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::: Thank you. In church yesterday this question: "When did you last change your mind?" and I thought that consistency was also something to go for ;) - What I came for was a pointy pointer at today's story about Astrid Schirmer ↗, a DYK hook OTD 2016, and look at the review ;) - I saw her on stage. Sadly, I see only three YT, and as I try to use only one, I took the lilac one, Isolde, with Gail Gilmore ↗ whom I saw more often, not only in Hannover but also in Wiesbaden, on the rise then as Adriano in Rienzi ↗ and Eboli in Don Carlos ↗. Brünnhilde is interesting, but shows only the Hojotoho aspect, and while the sexy Sancta Susanna ↗ is good listening, it has pics not of her but of marble figures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::: The Thomas Johannes Mayer ↗ hook is on the main page now, with some of your ideas and some of mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Great work, Gerda! Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::: Thank you! What I like especially is that the stats for both Wotan and Wozzeck were also 4 digits, - there 'is' interest in these topics, it seems, at least when roles come with interesting names. I guess today's Marie Engle ↗ - congratulations! - will also have good stats, for the nice image. In prep another one pictured, and question to self: let it go with a hook that has ''no indication'' of her importance for Finnish opera, because the image will "sell" the hook? (Again, the reviewer passed two hooks, and the promoter grabbed the first, possibly without even reading the discussion.) We had Margot Fonteyn ↗ the other day, and a term I liked in her article is "distinguishing role". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
{{od}} just a quick question because I arrived at your name in my watchlist (and I have something more interesting ↗ to do than asking on WT:DYK, and it's not an error): what is interesting in that SÖMÖ was a bookseller before she went into politics? - which you promoted. For me, not a), not b), not the combination, a common combination of two common unspecified occupations, true for I guess hundreds of people. My idea of interesting seems to be different ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

:It's a reasonable question. For me, the scope of the question pertains to the role of the promoter. How much is the question of what is "interesting to a broad audience" within the purview of a promoter? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:: By promoting you accepted it as interesting, no? You could have promoted something else. You could have asked the question in the nom. She is one of the articles where I'd agree with Narutolovehinata5 that don't offer anything interesting enough for DYK, also of the "doing her jobs"-kind. Instead, Wanda Perdelwitz ↗ was rejected, known to many per popular tv and with some "coolest" awards, and this woman was accepted. What's the standard? She is the fifth in a row in February alone, and there may be more coming. I liked the threesome from Hamburg, and found their hook interesting, but "politician" and "bookseller", really?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I think you misunderstood. I found it interesting, and I assumed a broad audience would also find it interesting. In the US, we have career politicians who have mostly held law degrees. AOC was notable for having a job as a bartender before pursuing politics. To me, this was somewhat similar. To you, not so much. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: Interesting, - that didn't even occur to me. One more reason to think about that whole "interesting" stuff, no? But what about "doing her jobs"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
thumb|Almond blossoming ↗
:::::Well, at least I was the catalyst for you and Naruto seeing eye to eye for once. I assume the world is about to end, now. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::: (ec) Funnily, just this morning I voted (by mail), for region, town and village, and read all the more than 200 names and professions on the regional ballot because I looked for a name, and there was a wide range of professions, yes, many in law and education but even an opera singer ↗. I was happy I didn't have to make my choices in a cabin, nor having to wait for others ;) - after edit conflict: it could be a beginning, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::: more fun: the opera singer's birth year was given on the giant sheet filling half a table, but I guess that's not a reliable source ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::: ... and on Talk:Maurice Ravel ↗, two editors seem to agree with me who rarely do ;) - I got news in the morning, wrote the article and nominated for DYK. It could have been ITN, for a change between killed people, removed rulers and disasters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Well, let's see: you are in agreement with Naruto, two people who never agree with you, do, what else? Should I get my affairs in order? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: always ;) - (I didn't say never. Did you look at the discussion? - Did I mention "clutter"? I don't remember ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I would explain, but this is funny just how it is. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: ps: I needed 2 qpq, and the 2 articles I found interesting were already under review guess by who? - After the miracle of writing an article and nominating same day, review the same day would make it even better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Is that a poke and a hint? I think it is. Nicely done. We will see how I feel when I get back tonight. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::: Let's see ... - you can now see what you asked for in January: pics of almond blossom above the clouds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::BTW, you can adjust that bokeh ↗ on your samsung. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Thank you, learning. - Nevermind about the DYK, it's approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Oceanic Steamship Company

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 5 February 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Oceanic Steamship Company ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the '''Oceanic Steamship Company ↗''' ''(advertisement pictured)'' beat a rival company in a trans-Pacific race, bought the rival's ships, and added them to '''its own fleet ↗'''?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oceanic Steamship Company ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oceanic Steamship Company ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}<nowiki> </nowiki>JuniperChill (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 5 February 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the '''Oceanic Steamship Company ↗''' ''(advertisement pictured)'' beat a rival company in a trans-Pacific race, bought the rival's ships, and added them to '''its own fleet ↗'''?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oceanic Steamship Company ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}<nowiki> </nowiki>JuniperChill (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Western Motel

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 17 February 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Western Motel ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that a motel room inside '''an Edward Hopper painting ↗''' was reconstructed in 3D, allowing guests to sleep there?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Western Motel ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Western Motel ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
{{DYK views|10,827|902.2|February 2026|Western Motel}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs ↗) (he/it ↗) 03:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
}}<nowiki> </nowiki>'''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 12:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

:You did a great job with the article. :-) You didn't have to credit me as well since you did all the work, but that was very thoughtful. APK '''hi :-)''' (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::You are very modest, but without those high quality images you provided, the article isn’t even worth visiting. You deserve the credit more than I do. Writing was the easy part, in this case. Viriditas (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:Congrats also on what GalliumBot says about views! I find it interesting that your hook did that without an image, even though mine, with the image, was in the same set, but had fewer views. (I'm not complaining: I'm actually quite happy with the views I got.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks. Two things: that hook only came about after six ''failed'' hooks were submitted. Make what you will of that. I spent three days trying to get it right, which is a bit obsessive, and frankly ''weird''. Hey, I never claimed to be a normie. As for the views, not sure what to make of it. I'm still stumped when it comes to the success of a hook. It kind of reminds me of my foray into amateur comedy back in the 1990s. All of the things people said was funny about my material seemed like it was completely unfunny to me. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I didn't know until now that you had tried doing comedy. Whatever you do, don't ask AI for jokes! (On a ''completely'' unrelated note, but going back to our discussions of films, last night I watched Blue Moon (2025 film) ↗, and absolutely loved it. Ethan Hawke ↗'s portrayal of Lorenz Hart ↗ is spectacular: it's like he never comes up for air.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I haven't seen it, but anything about Hart has got to be good. His songs are still some of the best. I've also been a fan of Ethan Hawke since day one. And speaking of songs and Hawke, the 1947 song "I'm My Own Grandpa ↗" features in Heinlein's story, "'—All You Zombies—' ↗", which was later adapted into a 2014 film called ''Predestination ↗'' featuring Hawke in one of his best performances in the science fiction genre outside of ''Gattaca ↗''. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Currently watching ''Frost/Nixon ↗''. It's really good. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Agree – I saw that a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the tip about ''Blue Moon''. I've added it to my watchlist. It's kind of funny you recommended it to me when you did, because I've been listening to a Hart playlist in my car for the last month or so. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::YW. It's on Netflix, if you have that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I’ve got it queued up. Trying to finish ''The Peripheral ↗'' right now. It’s not bad. I think the thing that interests me the most is the concept of telepresence through remote robotics. It’s an idea that we are seeing more of right now. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I really liked Kevin Bacon's performance in ''Frost/Nixon''. He's such a damn good actor. Makes you really believe in the role. Sam Rockwell was way over the top, but I think that's his style. It can be a bit distracting. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK from Wing Sun Fong

Hello there! So I wanted to address a concern to you about a DYK nomination from Wing Sun Fong ↗'s article. I was, for some reason, unable to comment on the DYK nomination itself so I had to make a seperate topic, here: Talk:Wing Sun Fong#Did you know info fix and suggestion ↗. I made a note there about how the information in the DYK is seen by historians of ''Titanic'' as being a made-up story and that the nomination should be changed to something more appropriate and one based on actual research - I also edited the article to fix that bit of misinformation on which the DYK was based on.

I don't get involved in DYK so I don't know how to re-open that nomination so I hope you can help out or maybe help fix it. Would be much appreciated! Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for the note. I will escalate the matter. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::Much appreciated! Hope you are well. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::It looks like you removed it from the article and it was removed from the DYK hook and replaced.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/5 ↗ Is there anything else that should be done? Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::::No, I think I understand now. I see now that the issue was indeed noted. As I mentioned before, DYK isn't something I've ever gotten involved in so I wasn't entirely sure if my suggestion was heeded.
::::Thank you for you help, genuinely appreciate it! Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::My pleasure. If you are interested, DYK could use your expertise, so please consider participating. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Here! Purplemaker (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
|}

input request

If you have time, can you take a cursory glance here and tell me if you think this is too long of an article? I feel like it might be, but his story is such a miscarriage of justice I wanted to include what seems to me relevant info. APK '''hi :-)''' (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Will do first thing tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

::APK, great job on this fascinating topic. Here's a fun tidbit: your article is only slightly shorter (79862 characters, 13111 words) than the featured bio on Jesus ↗! (84930 characters, 13992 words) Apologies, but I thought you would get a kick out of my humor. But there is a point buried in there. I don't think length will ever be the fundamental problem, but rather focus, density, and subsectioning. However, in a bio like this, I think you want to shoot for around 10k words or less, but don't let that arbitrary limit stop you. I would focus on cutting the lead in half, but most people do that at the end, so don't think it is anything you have to do right now. The main issue I see is the lack of subsections, which would tell you right away what you need to keep and what you need to cut. The first thing that stands out to me is a lot of the discussion about what Junius is feeling and thinking. The context sounds almost hypothetical, but I understand you are trying to humanize your subject as best as possible, and that's admirable, but if we really don't know what they were feeling and thinking and this is just a kind of hypothetical by the author (I'm assuming this is Burch), I would think about cutting that material first. But don't entirely discard it; you may be able to salvage it in its own section about his emotional and psychological state. This is what I'm really gettting at: group the related content together into their own subsections. The lack of density at this time reflects the lack of those sections. Legacy is nice and dense, and you probably want to aim for that style elsewhere (maybe you just got tired at the end?) Branch's lawsuit section seems like a candidate for condensing down, as does moving out of the locked ward, guardianship and outside assistance, further evaluations and stroke, relocation and changes to patient status, and farm colony and increased privileges. Once you've done that and trimmed the lead, it should be good to go. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:::Thank you so much for the feedback. I'll definitely work on trying to make it more concise. Side note, in the 90s my school was very close to the hospital, and I never heard about this man. Wish I had followed news events at the time. APK '''hi :-)''' (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Since you are passionate about this topic, I would encourage you to take it all the way to the featured level. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tolkien: Man and Myth ↗

Regarding this ↗, I don't think the source's {{tq|understand Tolkien from a religious perspective}} is saying the same thing as the new hook's {{tq|grasping [Tolkien's] "religious perspective"}}. TompaDompa (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:How is it qualitatively different? How would you paraphrase it instead? I’m not going to add "understand[ing]” to a hook. Looking at the source, it appears there are any number of ways to say it. If you don’t like the way I did it, then do it without a bracketed insertion. That’s not conducive to readability or hookiness. And since I’m going to be offline for a while, you will get a better response and action requesting a change on the DYK talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::I see that you changed it back ↗. For the sake of clarity, my point is that I don't think that understanding a person from a religious perspective and understanding that person's religious perspective are interchangeable. So in this case, replacing {{tq|grasping his "religious perspective"}} with {{tq|grasping him from a "religious perspective"}} (optionally omitting the quotation marks) would have also been satisfactory to me. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for explaining. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you help?

Per your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_212#More_eyes_needed_at ↗; a week has passed, nothing is happening. Can you help move this? PS. I'll also point out to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_211#No_potential_to_be_interesting?_-_concering_the_first_Witcher_board_game ↗, and the fact that a sister article with what I consider similar hook to one of the proposed there is mainpaged today with nobody complaining: Talk:The_Witcher_Adventure_Game#Did_you_know_nomination ↗. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Piotrus|Narutolovehinata5}} Naruto said they would approve it after the copyedit was completed. Was it? Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::I just took a new look at the article. It's a lot better now, but it still needs further edits. For one, there are multiple statements that are inside parentheses; ideally, they needed to be better integrated into the article. I had been planning to approve the nomination earlier, but when I last checked, it seemed that copyediting was still not complete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions ↗) 10:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Makes sense. At least Piotrus knows what to do. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::@Narutolovehinata5 Please point me to a relevant guideline that advises against the use of parentheses; I don't see such a note at MOS:BRACKET ↗. I have nonetheless c/e-ed some affected sentences. If you reply here, please ping me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::No need to even ping him, as you and I discussed this previously elsewhere and I complained back then. You probably don't remember as you are somewhat prolific and are busy with other things. The parentheticals I previously complained about tended to act as speed humps (normally, I would write speed bumps, but that usage has apparently been deprecated in favor of humps, don't ask me why) preventing the reader from actively moving forward. I just provided a humorous example of this for you to peruse. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I honestly don't recall this conversation, but I am certainly open to the idea that I overuse the parentheticals. Can you see if there are still too many? (And I'd also appreciate a link to the relevant policy, because this - i.e. "beauty of the prose" - is somewhat of a subjective territory; with no offense, as much as I may be overusing the parentheticals, it may also be that some people are too sensitive to them...). Incidentally, hyphens serve a similar function - how do you feel about them? I even thought about using them more, but I also recently read that AIs tend to use too many hyphens so errr not sure if this would be good or bad, given our anti-AI sentiments around here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'm going offline for a bit, but I'm pretty sure the MOS or some other guideline says to minimize the use of parentheticals. I recall reading it the last time we discussed this. Enjoy your week. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@Narutolovehinata5 Ping. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, I was waiting for the conversation to end and for Viriditas to give more advice. As far as I can tell, MOS does not outright prohibit discouraging the use of parentheticals the way you did; in fact, the MOS even gives instructions on how to do it (or use dashes). But in practice, I remember it being a discouraged practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions ↗) 02:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::@Narutolovehinata5 If a practice is not reflected in our rules, it is unclear if it represents a consensus or just a preference of some editors (think WP:ENGVAR ↗, etc.). That said, I think I removed about half of them from the article, as I agree it was rather ()heavy, so thanks for pointing that out - can we move on? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Did you use an LLM to write the new contents section? You've got to fix it up. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Which section? Can you link to it? And fix what up? I write stuff myself, although I test various tools, including LLMs, for proofreading/grammar correction (mostly Grammarly ↗). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Content section. Reads like an LLM wrote it. The "tell" is it uses the next expected word rather than random words written by a person. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Interesting. Well, as I said, I use Grammarly, and I do test other tools to improve my prose, since I am not a native speaker, and folks do complain occasionally about other stuff (like parenthesis), so I increasingly throw my text, or the chunks of it I am not very happy with, at various LLMs models, tell it to rewrite it to sound more native, then pick the sentences I think sound best, mix-and-matching them. Of course, I do make sure than the end text is correct and factually represents what I want it to, and contains no hallucinations, etc., since sometimes these models go a bit too far. What is "the next expected word", btw? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It means it predicts the most likely word to be used. As for the content section, just use what you have but rewrite it using several paragraphs in a more natural format like you do in your encyclopedic writing offline. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Wait, are you saying my non-native tone is preferable to this? I started using these tools precisely because folks, including an occasional DYK reviewer, complained my prose needs to be copyedited. You want me to reintroduce my "errors"? :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy ___." These are things the LLM does very well. As for your non-native tone, yes, I like that very much just as long as it is copyedited for readability. There's a reason non-native English speakers have a reputation for writing the best novels in English. Wrap your mind around that. As for the people who say you need to change your local voice and conform to some kind of Wikipedia house style, well, I have to watch my words carefully here. Don't listen to them. The reality is that the best articles here are not written in a house style, they are written in a unique, distinctive way, that makes people sit up straight and pay attention and keep reading. These people who tell you otherwise either don't understand that or aren't able to recognize it. To put it another way, I don't want every article to sound the same way, I want them to sound completely different. This is the direct opposite of how many people think. They yearn for a kind of singular homogeneity that eliminates the individual voice wherever it arises. It's a kind of intellectual fascism, and it's extremely common. LLMs are the most insidious, nefarious, and Orwellian outcome of this kind of attitude. At the end of the day, they will not have only eliminated the individual human voice, they will have vanquished human thought entirely. That's the endgame. Read ''1984'', the playbook is all there. It's the scene where they are talking about how Newspeak will change the future. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I do appreciate your thoughts, particularly in the broader scheme of things; the problem is that it's hard to make everyone happy - I don't think everyone would agree with you; and since I do get requests to 'copyedit my works' for English sufficient enough that I have my own friendly copyeditor (User:Nihil novi) whom I believe I increasingly ping (maybe ~2 a month, at least?), very often due to reviewers requests at DYK. Lastly, I am not sure if heterogeneity of style is preferable. I recently was expanding the article on The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction ↗, reading its numerous reviews, and several reviewers praised it on the uniformity of style, due to almost all entries of the earlier, print editions being written by only a handful of writers. As I am a SFE contributor now, and I know it has many more contributors, I wonder what the reviewers will say, and in fact, I try to keep my entries in what I think is the in-house style (and in fact, I even use LLMs to adjust my entries there for this). Likewise, as someone who researchers and publishes about Wikipedia, I recall that the most common criticism of Wikipedia is due to its low readability (compared to other reference works), i.e. that many of our writers cannot write "nice" prose. So again, while I appreciate your kind words about my style, I am not sure whether they represent the views of most editors (and readers), and whether having many different voices makes sense. In the end, there's a reason we have WP:MOS ↗ and it tends to enforce some structure, up to and including tone and style (from WP:WTA ↗ to others, including WP:AISIGNS ↗). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::'''Several reviewers praised it on the uniformity of style'''. Yes, this is the dominant view. And I find it completely and totally wrong, as well as dangerous. Fascists love uniformity. It's how they eliminate new ideas. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Mhm, but its a blurry line between going to far. Consider WP:COMMONNAME ↗, for example. Or the concept of standardizing category names (I cannot find the relevant letter soup for that, but it's logical that if we have for example :Category:Polish writers ↗ and Fooian writers in general, we want :Category:Ukrainian writers ↗, not :Category:Writers of Ukraine ↗. It's not fascist to support that view, I hope :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Have you studied category theory in philosophy? It’s basically dismissed as a useless exercise at this point. Maybe most people aren’t aware of this. Every thing is interconnected and overlapping. Categories don’t even come close to describing this or representing reality. Let’s stop talking about this. Let it become a splinter in your mind and fester. Think about if for several days, weeks, months, and years. If you have a uniformity of language, then you’ve automatically restricted and limited thought. This was Orwell’s main point. If you want to control how people think, simply control their language. And once you redefine words to mean things other than they mean, then you can eliminate the ideas they originally pointed to and replace those ideas with others. War is peace. Freedom is slavery, etc. In the US, the far right has already accomplished this by redefining “government”, a function of democracy, as "evil", and monarchy and dictatorship as “good”. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Maybe we should work on getting groupthink ↗, newspeak ↗ and so on to GA :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::As serendipity would have it, I just found an interesting book on this related topic. I may start a new article about it when I finish reading it. I will keep you updated. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I will look forward to it. In the meantime, are there any issues with the Witcher game DYK I missed? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::The_Witcher:_The_Adventure_Card_Game#Contents ↗ is hardly new, and it was written my myself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Not that article. The Tolkien one. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Marie Engle

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 24 February 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Marie Engle ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Marie Engle ↗''' ''(pictured)'' was one of the earliest operatic singers to be recorded on rare Bettini cylinders ↗?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Engle ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marie Engle ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}<nowiki> </nowiki>Launchballer ↗ 00:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Halloween Martin

25px ↗ Hello! Your submission of Halloween Martin ↗ at the Did You Know nominations page ↗ has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at '''your nomination's entry ↗''' and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

March music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Blackthorn with peacock butterfly, Niederauroff.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Aribert Reimann's 90th birthday, with a hook mentioning his 80ths, the opera played by Oper Frankfurt ↗ after he died, see video, and I was there. - Ruta de los Volcanes is among the latest places. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Now Cyprus, made it back home safely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

:Welcome back! We have missed your acerbic wit and sparkling personality. Did you have a good time? I apologize for my country attempting to start WWIII, but most of us are being held hostage by a Mad King at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:: Thank you! I had a good time, - places have a few pics already. Here is my acerbic wit: Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page ↗, I'm most proud of a woman's work ↗, so made it my story. (As you may have seen on WT:DYK: I had neglected my duties for the topic's nomination over vacation, therefore the nom was closed, and also the topic branded "not interesting". Hostage ...) As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman, - by pure and loved coincidence. - I saw Written on Skin ↗ yesterday, and one reviewer said that what was meant to be the woman's humiliation, she made it her triumph. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:: on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
:: more Bach in story and music, imagine: four Easter cantatas in today's concert, and more places in Cyprus! - the story was a pictured DYK in 2017, pointing at the most prominent use of the hymn imaginable, - in the video, the singers stand out by robes, did you see? Of the four cantatas, I sang two, and the secular model of a third. Close to my heart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Halloween Martin

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 8 March 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Halloween Martin ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Halloween Martin ↗''' ''(pictured)'' became one of the first modern DJs at a time when radio widely discriminated against women?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Halloween Martin ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Halloween Martin ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}<nowiki> </nowiki>'''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 00:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice Job with Halloween Martin ↗

Nice job with Halloween Martin ↗, of whom I had never heard until I stumbled upon the mention in today's DYKs. Glad I caught that "Le Roy" Kurtzeborn should be "LeRoy Kurtzeborn". I'm puzzled. You knew the name was misspelled when you wrote the article! I would think that the ''Chicago Tribune'' is a sufficiently reliable source to have established the correct spelling. --Alan W (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alan W}} The ''Chicago Tribune'' misspelled it. Virtually half of the sources have major errors. It is correctly spelled "Le Roy".https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/114078611/halloween-joan-kurtzeborn#view-photo=169359938 ↗ The gravestone is only one of the many corrections that were made. I believe the primary source documents on Ancestry and several other articles confirm that the name is correctly spelled "Le Roy" not LeRoy. Many of the sources also misspell his last name. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::Well, how about that? Even usually reliable sources can be wrong. I just undid what I thought were fixes. The "Find a Grave" link as you say shows Le Roy Kurtzeborn's gravestone, so that should settle it! I'm glad you responded to this so quickly. And that you added this article in the first place. I always love to learn this kind of thing. --Alan W (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::No worries. I pulled a lot of my hair out of my head writing this article. Even the most reliable sources I used had major errors. I spent a lot of time cross-checking everything, and it was really frustrating. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I know the feeling. And loss of hair. :-) Another thought. Oh, wait, yet another.... I just checked the source in your footnote citing the ''DePaulia'' article where you say that Kurtzeborn's name is misspelled. But it is not! It is the ''Chicago Tribune'' that misspells his name. More changes are in order. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::DePaulia also misspells his last name. Look closer.https://digicol.lib.depaul.edu/digital/collection/p16106coll4/id/25938 ↗ It's easy to miss! Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Oh boy, is it ever easy to miss. I had to blow up that page quite a bit to see it. At least we have these digital tools and can use them at home, which was not at all the way it was when I was growing up. Now, I have made more changes. Of course if it's still not right, you can make further changes. I see how you could have pulled out so much hair working on this. --Alan W (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'm slightly upset that I couldn't find a single archival recording of her voice to upload. I've been reading supplementary sources about the history of radio, and they all say the same thing: archival material about the history of radio from the 1920s was either destroyed or lost. Meanwhile, she was on the radio until 1946! And nobody has a single recording of her voice?? It blows my mind that nobody is paying librarians to save and preserve anything. This really hit home when I wrote the recent article in January on "The Other America (speech) ↗". I discovered that the vast majority of San Francisco history recorded by the media prior to 1980 was deliberately destroyed. I am still reeling from this. Do people know history is being erased? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::That is indeed shocking that with all her time on the radio, nothing with Martin's voice has been preserved. Even more shocking is what you say about all the rest of our cultural history that has been deliberately, or by unforgivable neglect, destroyed. I dipped into your article on King's speech. I'll want to read more. You've been making great contributions here! Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I enjoyed the article, too. I was curious how she got her first name. By the way, I vaguely remember that "Find a Grave" is considered an unreliable source, because it's a kind of wiki, although I guess a photograph is a photograph. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Nikkimaria}} for help on the "Find a Grave" question. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::The site in general is considered unreliable, yes. The photographs can be used but only in very narrow circumstances - only for what the photo actually shows, only for claims not requiring analysis, and otherwise in accordance with WP:PSTS ↗. (And generally, it's not necessarily safe to assume that the stone is correct where sources are contradictory). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks. I think you are referring to the above discussion about Martin's husband's name, that is the spelling of "Le Roy E. Kurtzeborn", and if the grave reflects the correct version of his name. To recap: I argued that the ''Chicago Tribune'' got it wrong in 1979.https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-obituary-for-leroy-e-ku/190957872/ ↗ Previous to that time, multiple articles had published his name as "Le Roy".https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/193104595/ ↗https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/193104633/ ↗https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-obituary-for-kurtzeborn/193104728/ ↗https://digicol.lib.depaul.edu/digital/collection/p16106coll4/id/25938 ↗ I didn't add the "Compare with his name on his gravestone" bit to the article; that was added by Alan W. If you think it should be modified or removed, please do so. Also, we can see that he spells his name "Le Roy" not as "Leroy" or "LeRoy" by looking at his own handwriting in two separate places on his 1942 draft card.https://www-ancestryinstitution-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/search/collections/2238/records/40370825 ↗ For me, that seals the deal. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I looked at it, and I think the "Compare... gravestone" part in the two footnotes should be removed. I have three reasons: (1) the fact that the gravestone is a sub-optimal source, (2) the fact that you have other sources for this anyway, so don't really need the gravestone, and (3) the fact that the instructions to the reader, to "compare" it, are confusing, because there isn't an obvious link to an image of the gravestone. Bottom line: delete that part, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Will do. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Done-arooni. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Of course, since you, Viriditas, removed the "Find a Grave" component, it's good that you also removed what I added about comparing with the gravestone spelling. Outstanding work, finding his draft card! --Alan W (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::::::}} Just one other comment for now, Viriditas. Somehow, until just before, I missed that on the talk page with "Issues and Errata". Just an oversight, I'm sure, as you have been around here for a very long time. But shouldn't you add your signature to that section? I know there is a way for others to do that, but better if you do it yourself, especially since you built up that section over a long time. I see, looking at the history, you did add it at first. But somehow it got lost.

Again, very impressive research here, Viriditas. And thanks too to Nikkimaria for clarifying that about "Find a Grave". It does my heart good to see that some people still really care about things like this. --Alan W (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

One other thought. (I know, sometimes I get carried away.) With good comments by Tryptofish too, this is a great example of what can be accomplished when Wikipedians work together in good faith. True teamwork. I have been around here a pretty long time myself, and it's been discouraging to have seen and experienced much in recent years that has been, to put it mildly, negative, with more than one top-notch editor driven away. There is hope for Wikipedia yet! --Alan W (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:Per your suggestion, I added a sig. Thanks for your feedback. Stick around. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::You, and the others who contributed here, offer me encouragement to stick around. These pages are on my watchlist, and I most certainly intend to stick around. --Alan W (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

":People's Republic of Santa Monica ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_Santa_Monica&redirect=no People's Republic of Santa Monica] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#People's Republic of Santa Monica}}''' until a consensus is reached.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 03:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Room in Brooklyn ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnegie Institute ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Fortunate Crossing of Wiki-Paths

Well, Viriditas, I have just more carefully read Room in Brooklyn ↗ and I'm glad I did, not only because I found a few tweaks to make but because I thoroughly enjoyed it. Another great contribution. I have always loved Hopper's work, and you are now helping me appreciate it better. Sorry for that edit where the edit comment ends with "I". My finger slipped and my change was prematurely published. I meant to add that I think adding some extra hyphens is preferable to "Hopper's long-running, figure in a sunlit room theme". This former punctuation makes it look like it's a theme that is both "long-running" and "figure in a sunlit room". It's the whole "figure in a sunlit room theme" that is long running.

Again, I feel fortunate that my Wiki path and yours have crossed, after both of us having been editing here for over twenty years. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

:No worries. Thanks for copyediting. Sometimes it feels like I'm writing with a blindfold on. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::BTW, that barber's pole ↗ in Hopper's painting of ''Early Sunday Morning ↗'' caught my eye, so I started reading up on barber's poles, the pawnbroker's symbol, and the caduceus (or Rod of Asclepius). It turns out these images were used because most people were illiterate. I never actually knew that. Also, it's interesting how much information has been lost about these symbols, with various academics arguing about them. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|... since you, Viriditas, don't seem to like those hyphens.}}
:::{{ping|Alan W}} No, this is the result of multiple edit conflicts from your copyediting and my editing occurring at the same time. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::OK, I see. Yes, edit conflict. Maybe you just didn't get to see my first edit of "long-running, figure in a sunlit room theme", changing it to "long-running figure-in-a-sunlit-room theme". But I think it also works as I changed it in my last edit. The one thing I feel strongly about is your originally separating a noun from its modifier with a comma. That's a grammatical no-no. Like writing "a blue, box". Sorry, I get passionate about these things, as a former English teacher and later a book editor.--Alan W (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Well, you're copyediting at the same time as me, so it's going to result in multiple edit conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::It happens. One never knows when another editor is going to be active. If one is really annoyed by someone else editing something you are painstakingly building up, one can always use the "under construction" template while major work is going on. Anyway, no problem, you've explained what was happening.
::::::I meant to add earlier that, yes, barber poles and other images, I kind of knew that but it is good to be reminded of things like this. Interesting stuff, indeed. Alan W (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'm active at this time every day. I don't use under construction templates because I intentionally choose to create articles nobody else cares about and generally work on them alone. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::"Nobody else"? You can see that at least one other Wikipedian cares. Anyway, these things can be worked out, as we just have. -- Alan W (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Just explaining my rationale. I intentionally choose topics where I can work alone which is why I don't use the templates. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Got it. Certainly no hard feelings.--Alan W (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I tried working closely with other editors from around 2004 to 2012, or so. It did not work out well. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ah, yes. I feel, and have felt, your pain. One downside of Wikipedia editing. I have seen some bitter conflicts drive good people away. In our case, at least so far, we have been able to work things out. --Alan W (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's not that. I was told that the reason I was running into issues was because of the topics I chose to edit. In other words, they were seen as "controversial", which apparently attracts editors like a moth to a flame to argue and get into disputes. This was not my intention. Unlike others, I wanted to improve the topic coverage, but I discovered I could not do this, and there were people who apparently existed only to block others from improving certain topics. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I myself have steered clear of these "controversial" topics. It shouldn't have to be that way. I think I do understand your intention. But others do not understand the kind of thing you were trying to do. That sort of thing is what I mean when I say that "I have seen some bitter conflicts drive good people away." The only controversial topic I got involved with, some years back, is the Shakespeare Authorship Question ↗. If there weren't others with tougher hides than I have jumping in and dealing with the controversial—or "controversial"—parts, I would have thrown up my hands and given up. I mostly confined myself to adding editorial polish. Otherwise, especially since then, I have, like you, preferred to work on the more out-of-the-way stuff, topics that only a few are interested in. --Alan W (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The state of things

There is a lot to say about a Wikipedia where a hook about a Navajo mathematician was instead about an alcoholic iced tea. DYK is a good, but murky insight into the contemporary cultural condition and things aren't well. I'm thinking a potential hook: …that smart phones that make us dumb can be replaced by dumb phones ↗ that make us smart? Thriley (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

:It may seem like a recent phenomenon, but it's a tale as old as time. Two steps forward, three steps back. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
::It is true, but it does seem that the rising idiocracy requires humanity to fall into a permanent oubliette ↗ where no more steps will be taken. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Like tears in rain. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carmen Alfaro Asins ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baria ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Uzgalis

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 1 April 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Robert Uzgalis ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Robert Uzgalis ↗''' made the Leaning Tower of Pisa straight?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Uzgalis ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Uzgalis ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
{{DYK views|8,398|699.8|April 2026|Robert Uzgalis}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs ↗) (he/it ↗) 03:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
}} '''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 00:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Wishing you well

I heard about the eruption of Mount Haka Tua ↗, and I hope you and everyone else in Hawaii are OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you for the well wishes. My thoughts are with the lost seamen. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:: That's a hard one to swallow. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Said the horse after swallowing a human pill. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::No need to swallow the seamen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yelled against the wind scouring the sagebrush and chaparral. The mustang eyed the old salt, ready to bolt. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Wishing you Wells Fargo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::The old timer turned around so fast it was like his head was on a swivel. There, standing in front of him was old Jedediah Smith. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Wishing you fell into a well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Whispered the desperado under his breath. Fargo couldn't believe his eyes, but he still remembered the password rejoinder after all these years: "Lucy Can't Drink Milk". Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines&curid=8946456&diff=1346630612&oldid=1346602722 ↗. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::You are too predictable! Hahaha... Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::I ''knew'' you were going to say that! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

April music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Oberauroff, purple dragon.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for hooks for Carmen Alfaro Asins ↗! - I'll have a woman ↗ in the next set, - my story, of course. I chose the video because it shows her in action (although from a "below" perspective). I also thought of the St John Passion ↗ (because of the timing), of "Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit ↗" (for the sentiment), and "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen ↗", because that's quoted on the death notice. I usually find recordings too slow, and this one is even slower - but convinced me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

:Adding something here that connects back to our previous discussion about hooks and the negativity bias ↗. I think this issue also dovetails with your writing style, and why you often face unnecessary pushback. I would like to write a larger issue about this problem and move it to mainspace, but for some unusual reason, the linguistics community has been avoiding the topic in some respects. This might be because it is ultimately interdisciplinary, and crosses over into multiple domains, from psychology to cognitive science, etc. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Did you listen to her singing? - She will be on DYK tomorrow, sigh, switched back to one set per day and Iwas too busy to notice. Tomorrow's story will be about the piece rejected no end last Easter which I made FA in defiance. DYK is sometimes good for something, in the end. Of today's set, I found two interesting which is a lot ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I will listen now. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Strangely, I prefer the latter piece, Mahler's "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen". I like hearing her sing slowly. That recording is also the best of the three you linked, likely because of the more modern recording methods. I'm surprised she never did any film or television work. Hers is the kind of voice you would expect to hear in a soundtrack making the scene more dramatic. I also like her tone and range. There's a lot of color to it. It's very sweet and lovely. For some weird reason, I was instantly reminded of Anita Kelsey ↗ singing "Sway" in ''Dark City ↗''. Obviously, there's a world of difference there, but you can hear the similarities in their voices. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for listening and good comments! (I said she convinced me, right?) That's what I go for, not view counts. - Happy Easter ↗! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::This general problem of metrics and what C. Thi Nguyen ↗ calls "value capture" is discussed in his new book, ''The Score ↗''. It sounds like something that would interest you as it would allow you to develop your argument based on real evidence. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::: Today's FA is Bridge ↗, - a broad topic by many. My father loved bridges, and I wrote a few articles with that in mind (Empress Elisabeth Bridge ↗, adding to Chain bridge ↗ and Müngsten Bridge ↗, the latter for childhood memory), and also thinking of bridges between people. - I brought two bios to the same page ↗, Christian Schwarz-Schilling ↗ and Bill Ramsey ↗ whose regular ''Swingtime'' I used to hear in the car driving to choir rehearsals ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::: Today's story is about one of three bios I brought to today's main page: look and listen, an extraordinary woman in many respects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. I just setup her catalog on my phone to listen to later tonight. I will get back to you then. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:At the Time of the Louisville Flood/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Jerry Bird 2019 International Skydiving Hall of Fame interview.jpg listed for discussion

30px|left ↗ A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Jerry Bird 2019 International Skydiving Hall of Fame interview.jpg ↗, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion ↗. Please see the '''discussion''' ↗ to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi User:Viriditas. I just wanted to say a big thank-you for your collaborative efforts in getting the Jerry Bird ↗ article over the DYK line, and for your detailed help and advice on accessing a new resource (for me) on the Wikipedia Library. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Paul W}} It was a pleasure working with you. This would have been a lot easier if we all had access to the full 2025 biography, but we didn't, so we had to make do. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Atropa bella-donna ↗

Hi. Earlier this year you removed some material I'd added about a widespread claim related to the origin of the name. I've left a comment on the talk page ↗ with a summary of my thoughts, and hope we can come to an agreement. Robin S (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

:I've replied to your most recent comments on the talk page. Not sure what the etiquette is for keeping you notified about it. Robin S (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Room in Brooklyn ↗ image

Hi, Viriditas. A while back, I noticed that someone had removed the picture of Room in Brooklyn ↗ from the List of works by Edward Hopper ↗. This bothered me, but it looked like there was some technical reason, some legal violation. I figured that eventually, one of us would figure out how to get past this obstacle. And now, in checking again, I noticed that, just a short while ago, you edited that image on Wikimedia Commons. Good timing! Looks like you have established that it is in the public domain, so I took the liberty of adding the link back to the list. I hope it sticks this time! Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... I see it is not the same image file. It looks like you substituted a superior one that, with whatever other changes were made, now has the correct legal justification. Be aware that now this has been restored to the List of works by Edward Hopper ↗. --Alan W (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, that's because it was tagged non-free. I just uploaded a new one that is tagged as PD after spending an hour reading the extensive discussion and links about Hopper on Commons and doing a copyright search. The only problem now is that the new image color is showing up differently on mobile now, which is my fault as I forgot to check the different platforms, as my desktop screen is apparently slightly miscalibrated. This means I will have to fix my monitor and then redo the image again. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

::Well, you saved me a lot of puzzling over such things, which I never got deeply into in the past, that about what is copyrighted, what is in the public domain, and so on. And that about the colors, since this is the only image I have ever seen of that painting, that's something I never would have noticed. Glad you are being so meticulous about this. And we all benefit by your skills in graphics editing. Me, I just fumble around with such stuff. --Alan W (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::It turns out that it wasn't my monitor. I went through the entire calibration process and the monitor was fine. It was the GIMP filter I used. I switched from PCA to Variational to transfer the colors and it carried over the red. For some reason, PCA doesn't do this. Take a look at the image now. It's far more muted than the older version, but that's closer to the reference image. The vibrancy was nice as brought out the white, but it was artificial, so I removed it. Now the red hue is back to normal. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Now the only remaining problem is the poor quality of the source image. Nothing I can do about that for now. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Well, I got lucky. Decided to do one last search for a good source image after having mostly given up, and what do I find, but a HQ version, so sharp you can read the signature at the bottom. Now uploaded. It looks pretty good, at least, much better than before. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'll just add that it's good that you understand all those technical aspects of image editing, with, as it seems to me, an artist's eye to guide you. I never could have done this. The newest picture does look deeper, richer than the one originally here. All of us Hopper lovers owe you a debt of gratitude. --Alan W (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Check out the level of new detail when you zoom in now. The A/C units are now visible in the windows and there's a strange design on the vase that I can't quite make out (even though I spent 10 minutes staring at it). There's also some other neat things. The new detail gives increasing odds to the idea that the lady (Hopper's wife?) is reading based on the position of her arms. Levin's 1995 biography of Hopper mentions Jo reading a lot. I used to love reading in sunny windows like this. There's nothing else quite like it. Of course, most people don't do this anymore as they are too consumed by their devices. One other thing is that some sources say it is morning, afternoon, or getting close to sunset, so the time of day isn't all that clear. I think it is morning, as the lady is wearing what looks like a nightgown, although I recall reading elsewhere that people might have worn these during the day at one time. The only thing that bothers me is the chair. I had a chair like that growing up, and without a chair cushion, there's no way you can read for any length of time. I don't see a cushion, so this seems off to me. It might also have to do with body types. I can't sit on hard surfaces for very long, so maybe I'm overly sensitive to this. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I see what you mean about the level of detail. It's true that now the air conditioners can be seen. And that's interesting in itself. Only in 1932 were these now-common window air-conditioning units introduced, at that time enormously expensive. (See, among other sources, Air conditioning ↗.) So that means that the "tenements" (I think of them as that, too) across the street are actually row houses occupied by the highly affluent. This is no scene showing "how the other half lives", which is what is suggested often when talking of "tenements". Other things to think about, too, but some of them get into the very personal, such as the hardness of the seat of the chair. As you suggest, tolerance for that is very individual. --Alan W (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, weren't these row houses known as "town houses" precisely because they were inhabited by the well to do as second homes in the city? Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Certainly that's one meaning of "town house". But that's begging the question, no? We don't know if these row houses ''were'' town houses in that sense. They could have been primary residences. But, given how costly the new air conditioners were then, the occupants sure wouldn't have been poor. --Alan W (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have one source that says this but it's about a different Hopper painting of a row house. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Curator Ella M. Foshay calls them "townhouses".https://archive.org/details/artinbloom0000fosh/page/68/mode/2up ↗ Given that she was the former curator for the New-York Historical Society ↗, I think we should give greater weight to this description here. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well, that source certainly carries weight. I have been thinking about this kind of thing. You might, with this in mind, reconsider your use of the term "tenement" elsewhere. In large U.S. cities, particularly New York, the term "tenement" has strong overtones of poverty, of overcrowding in poor neighborhoods. Take a look at this ↗. Wait! I'm glad I just thought of checking. As usual, you are several steps ahead of me. At some point in the past few weeks, you removed "tenement" altogether. Excellent! --Alan W (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I see the change was made just yesterday. No wonder I missed it. In my experience, "row houses" is the term more commonly applied to the townhouses of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in New York. But Ella Foshay calls them "townhouses", and she ought to know something about this matter, so that should stand up all right here. --Alan W (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I think they are brownstone townhouses, but I haven't yet been able to source that. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Second thoughts, third thoughts.... I see you don't actually use the term "townhouse", so that is moot. But some other thoughts are, without confirmation from some source, we really don't know whether the residences across the street are in one apartment house, or are several privately owned rowhouses, either single family, or multi-family. For all we know, it could all be a facade of a hotel, no? With those expensive newfangled air conditioners, we do know these are not residences of the poor. --Alan W (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The alternate interpretation is that they are not A/C units at all, but mounted fans. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I suppose that's possible, too. We would need a real expert to be sure about this. --Alan W (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Now I can't stop thinking about this (I've been busy this week and now I can focus again on this; you've been doing great work!). Come to think of it, you do have a source that suggests what is across the way is ''not'' an "apartment building". Ella Foshay's account would imply that this is a row of privately owned residences, not a single apartment building. To an old-time New Yorker myself, "row houses" sounds fine, and you say that later; but what the woman is gazing out at is ''not'' an apartment building. So I think there is an inconsistency here, which I would suggest you think about. --Alan W (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yeah, I think I'm going to go with townhouse, which is also a synonym for a terraced house, which is what I started with. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Not my favorite choice, but Ella Foshay is the expert and I am not. At least you are removing the inconsistency. --Alan W (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Outstanding! Your rewording has sidestepped the problem altogether. No longer any need to debate about "tenements", "terraced houses", or "townhouses". Or whether those are air conditioners or fans. It reads very well, now, too. --Alan W (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Great work on that article, lots of interesting detail. Sorry that I got in the way of deleting the older image file. If you want to speed up the deletion process (and avoid people like me misreading the situation!), you can use WP:F5 ↗. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK hook length

thumb|This section needs cat pics ↗
I can't find the page that calculates the hook length. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

:I mean, you can find it to the right of any DYK as long as you are in the template screen and it hasn't been promoted. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates?withCSS=MediaWiki:HidefirstHeading.css&wpInput=%7B%7BUser%3AMandarax%2FDYKHookLength%7CDid+you+know+nominations%2FRoom+in+Brooklyn%7D%7D ↗ You can probably fill in the blanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::Edit: The link disappears outside the template if transcluded on talk after promotion, but still appear within the template. Such as at Template:Did you know nominations/[article name]. See also: :User:Mandarax/DYKHookLength ↗ for usage. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::You can also use any random character counter online as a rough count. It's usually good enough. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

May music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Park near Lutheran church, Sopot, pansies.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for speaking about negotiation and compromise on my talk. - Die Stechardin ↗ made it to the main page; - the historic woman was a flower seller ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Today: Felicity Lott ↗. My story. If you have time, listen to her singing Friendly Vision ↗, with the word "peace" (Frieden) floating up high, softly and serenely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::I downloaded the entire album. ''Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie'' (Chandos, 1987). Will listen to it tonight and get back to you. Looking forward to it! Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Gerda, this is a fairly complex piece. I feel like you have given me a homework assignment. This will take me several days to think about. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Well, I must have listened to the piece six times and still can't get enough of it. Truly inspiring. What really stands out is how modern it sounds even after around 125 years. Could you talk a bit more about the line "Götterbilder leuchten aus dem Laube"? Is it a reference to Germanic paganism ↗? I also want to compliment you on the excellent article you wrote about the tune. Well done! Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::::About your image of the meadow with daisies: those were everywhere in the United States until the 1990s. You never see them anymore. I wonder if it is because of the weed killing herbicides in the environment now that Germany doesn't allow. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::::: (ec) Thank you, happy about you taking up the task and even finding it inspiring! No idea about the Götterbilder, - could be simply statues like in some parks. I remember that my first image also had a red poppy among the Wiese voller Margeriten, until Iridescent told me something about unpleasant memories related to it. - I enjoyed the Felicity Lott charting ↗ today, - had no idea of those charts of teamwork. I also liked that the Gramophone obit pointed at the same song, among others. With more time, that also could go to her article.
::::: (after ec) I remember being surprised to see millions of them lining roads in Pennsylvania when travelling from NY state to FLW's Fallingwater ↗, but that was before 1990. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Gerda, regarding German paganism and the image of "aus dem Laube", Tacitus refers to the sacred groves of the Semnones ↗. They believed that their nation was created in the sacred grove and their deity dwelled there. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::::: ps: I forgot to say how much I liked the DYK below, a pearl among so many that don't reach me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::That's very interesting. I found that hook rather unusual, as it points out two separate ideas that converge: Hopper only painted one major work featuring flowers, and he did so, in part, because he was sexist. But there were many other moving parts involved here that didn't make their way into the hook for various reasons. He painted the flowers in this work, in many respects, as a way of incorporating his wife's style into his own as a commentary on their relationship (which the following pendant ''Room in New York'' did so overtly). My own personal take is that there is a lot more going on here that we don't know about. His wife's story about wanting to paint the Brooklyn Bridge seems invented to mask the real underlying story. My guess is that like ''Room in New York'', this was a commentary on his wife and his relationship. There is, however, a missing part of the puzzle. There are (or were) paintings by his wife that may have lent additional weight to some kind of interpretation. Many of these have been lost or destroyed. One thing that I found while writing this is the work the two of them did together, side by side outdoors. What I found surprising was that in at least several instances, Jo's work appeared superior to Edward's, in terms of color and form. It was as if his own personal struggle with what I imagine was a kind of debilitating depressive disorder (based on his friend's recollections) impacted his composition and use of color. You could see it in the finished work when they created two similar works of real places. At the end of the day, the loneliness that Edward Hopper is depicting in his work doesn't exist in the real world. It's in his own mind that he's projecting on the canvas, and he says this several times in so many different words. I found it surprising that almost no art critic has ever picked up on this. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::: That's very interesting, thanks for sharing! - I just listened to Trotz again, and found the serenity of "in gar sichrer Ruh" quite similar to "peace" in the Strauss song, - never thought of that. A 2014 DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Museum

Thanks for adding so much good data and links in the Jack Nicklaus Museum ↗ page. I'd say you saved it as a stand-alone page. As usual, nice work! Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Room in Brooklyn

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 18 May 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Room in Brooklyn ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that Edward Hopper '''painted flowers just once in a major work ↗''', dismissing them as fit only for "lady painters"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Room in Brooklyn ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Room in Brooklyn ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Cielquiparle (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

June music

{{User QAIbox
| image = White hydrangea, Idstein.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
If you look at our church ↗, you see three recent pics, on top of a concert that Franz Josef Hamm ↗ arranged for his 90th birthday (and invited everybody for free), a new one of our conductor, and at the bottom us taking standing ovations. The music, Forrest's Jubilate Deo ↗, is quite breathtaking, and the organist (my choral conductor for decades) said we were better than what he had heard on the internet. No youtube upcoming, though, copyright ... - Today a 90th birthday that I missed to announce for OTD over the concerts, a 2012 quirky hook. I was there when he lectured on "Transcendental Constructivism". I also failed to bring the other 90th birthday to DYK, - I was not in the mood to fight for precision, but not ready to accept vagueness. - Thanks for the NYT offer! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:My pleasure. I am out the door right now but I will take a look at your photos and articles later. For what it is worth, you shouldn't always have to "fight" for your hooks. If you find yourself getting into that headspace then there is a disconnect somewhere. Speaking only for myself, I acknowledge that my approach is very different from other people, and I think you know that yours is as well. I have to modify and temper my approach based on the specific audience to fit in. I think we share the same qualities in that respect, which is why I am a personal fan of your work. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:: For when you return: I even thought of calling you for an opinion about the step from "timber-framed" to "historic", but let it go, which meant no DYK and I knew that. Should we wait until they turn 100? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I am very sorry to only just learn that Franz Josef Hamm was rejected as a DYK. This issue dovetails nicely with another discussion I recently had about hooks. Best to just add the supported material first and then work on the unsupported material later, as you go. As for the trimming of the hook,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_6&diff=prev&oldid=1353126149 ↗ let's take a look:
::::* ... that the architect '''Franz Josef Hamm ↗''' and '''Hildegard Schirmacher ↗''' performed pioneering work in historic preservation of half-timbered ↗ structures of the old town of Limburg an der Lahn ↗ ''(example pictured)''{{-?}}
::::* ... that the architects '''Franz Josef Hamm ↗''' and '''Hildegard Schirmacher ↗''' completed pioneering work in the preservation of historic structures in the old town of Limburg an der Lahn ↗?
:::My take only: instead of requesting that AJM pull the hook, you could have just have easily said "I understand the need to trim, but please preserve half-timbered as it is important element of the design." In other words, no need to go straight to the nuclear option. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::: And what makes you think I did? I explained and gave three options, and "pull" was none of them, - I said "restore" and meant the state when not yet promoted. I also pinged the one who had approved the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::: ps: I noticed the missing plural for architect(s) but was blocked and couldn't fix it, so that was a good change. I wonder why "completed" instead of "performed"? Restoration of a medieval town - like of a cathedral - is never completed. One could rather say "began" pioneering work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Read the talk page comments of the hook ↗. Your request was interpreted as a pull (the nuclear option) and resulted in a debate over trimming. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::: Interpreted, yes. Instead of restoring the nom to the previous state, it was "pulled", saying so, without a link to the request, giving it the flavour of "something is wrong". I hoped for someone to simply promote the original. I didn't go to WT:DYK, where I don't feel welcome, and didn't ask for help besides my talk, trying to avoid the "canvass" label. I had a week filled with company and singing, which I enjoyed tremendously! - Back to the beginning: saying "I understand the need to trim" would be a lie ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I can't blame you. "People are people, so why should it be? ↗" Lots of people are victims of their own prejudice and discrimination, and that colors their judgment on all things. Petty, vindictive, jealous, greedy, you name it. And the powers that be give people who demonstrate those traits a leg up and a promotion. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::My point was that the hook could be trimmed, and you could have accepted that, while ''also'' requesting the chosen wording within that shortened framing. You can't have everything you want. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: (sorry, not in the mood for DYK:) Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39 ↗, is my story today: listen! - its tricentennial, just not for Wikipedia ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: back to DYK: I happened to look at the DYK for Paulinerkirche, Leipzig ↗ today, and wonder how that would be ''trimmed'' now, 15 years later. What do you think of the idea to request that promoters who want to trim announce that in the nom (without closing and promoting yet), providing the possibility of discussion ''in one public place'' (instead of asking for the mercy of granting context with the promoter, and/or discussing on WT:DYK, and/or resuming discussion in the nom after pulling)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::The Paulinerkirche hook was interesting due to the element of dynamite, but at 178 characters in length, I suspect much of it would be trimmed, thought it would remain intact. As for the centralizing idea of announcing the trim, it's not a bad idea, but it would slow down the process considerably. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::: "Some church was dynamited" would be all if that was all said in a hook. The former building of our church ↗ was, - so? The ignorance of that regime to cultural heritage of some magnitude makes it much more scandalous, imho. The word play of Pauliner and St. Paul, Mendelssohn's oratorio, adds interest and a feeling of the magnitude, imho. Happy that I did DYK in 2011 when such things were understood. - What do you suggest to say for Gary Hoffman ↗? - How do you think discussing trimming in the hook would slow down the process? Could we instead have a routine that a promoter can really simply undo a promotion when trimming is questioned, bringing it back in the earlier unpromoted state without a "pulled" comment that raises suspicion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::You are overthinking this. The DYK process does not need to be adversarial. As long as we are all working towards the same goal, our different styles and preferences should fuse together in pursuit of that goal, without much friction. Then again, this isn't always possible. Look at the collaboration of Billy Wilder ↗ and Raymond Chandler ↗ on ''Double Indemnity ↗''. Chandler understood dialogue better than Wilder, but that took some time for Wilder to acknowledge. I think we have to look at our strengths and weaknesses and accept them. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::: "overthinking" seems to be something different from "überdenken" ;) - I'll happily accept thinking too much as a weakness. The DYK for which I asked for assistance was approved, - let's see what trimming will make of it. I was busy with a mezzo today ↗ (only translating so far), and now return from the opera which was fascinating, a soft ending unheard in all the ones I saw so far, but for some it would just be "an opera so not interesting, so we have to speak of something else". See music tomorrow, I'm too tired ;) - Three of the major singers have an article, but that fascinating ending was sung by the fourth who just completed opera studio last year, went freelance for a year and will become a member of the ensemble with the next season, - looking forward! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
{{od}} Yesterday was the former German Unity Day, installed when unity was just a dream. I had a story to match, and today, it's the other one I told you about, with music by Bach ↗ and Mendelssohn ↗ to match, - that DYK hook from 15 years ago that seems from a different world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Today is the centenary of King Roger ↗, an opera by Karol Szymanowski ↗ who is pictured on the main page, - my story with the trailer of the performance I saw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:: Thank you for the offer of "giving" me NYT articles. For Mignon Dunn ↗, I found several reviews, but can't see the obit. If there's anything in it that is missing in the article, could you simply add it, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::It is easier if you send me email with links or titles. I can then reply with the full text sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::: It's past midnight, I need sleep, sorry. The article is marked ready (WP:ITNN ↗) to be posted to the main page, but it isn't. There's a ref named NYobit, - that is the one. Interesting what Donal Henahan ↗ wrote about her as Fricka, in 1983. Her Wotan then needs an article in English ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I sent you the full text version by email. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you, read. One good quote, about Orfeo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Edits to At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗

On May 26th you added ↗ the following Sfn cite <nowiki> {{sfn|International Center of Photography|2005f}}</nowiki>. There had been no complete/correct citation in the article for the 2005f information. I have just now corrected the article's Harv warnings and also the Harv error for the 2005f reference. Just wanted you to know. - Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|Shearonink}} thanks, Shearonink. If I may make your job a bit easier: if you had simply told me about the CSS code {{code|.harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */}}, which I only just discovered and installed, I would have been more than happy to do the work (which I just did on Josefino Comiso ↗). In other words, if you tell people about this code, you will find that the harv errors will clean themselves up in a very short amount of time. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::This is interesting to me. I never heard about the CSS code. Instead, I think it was DuncanHill who tipped me off to another way to detect these errors and warnings, by creating a subpage of my User page, "common.js" and adding a line of JavaScript to it (which calls some function elsewhere; how that works exactly, I never looked into, but I probably don't need to). --Alan W (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The other weird thing is that the errors often show at the bottom of the page in a table, but then, for some reason or another, they don't and just disappear. Not sure why, but the CSS code makes them explicit in red and easy to fix. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::::See :Category:Harv and Sfn template errors ↗ for information about both the errors and how to spot and fix them. I mention this in thousands of edit summaries, but alas I have not found that "the harv errors will clean themselves up in a very short amount of time". DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::It took me several minutes to do it once I had the CSS code in place. Most people can't see the errors as they are suppressed without it. Once editors can see it, they can fix it. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::The instructions for installing the script I use can be found at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, the script itself can be found at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. Sometimes I do notify folks about Harv/sfn errors & warnings on articles they've edited (if I can't figure out the corrections/the citations/adjustments myself) and sometimes folks correct & adjust quickly and sometimes? my posts go unanswered. Hope it was all of some help. Just trying to make it easier for our cutsomers, the Wikipedia readers, to delve into the research themselves if they wish. Verifiability and all that. - Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:At the Time of the Louisville Flood/GA2{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Josefino Comiso

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 12 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Josefino Comiso ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Joey Comiso ↗''' first became interested in science after his village mistook an airplane contrail for the end of the world?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Josefino Comiso ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Josefino Comiso ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} theleekycauldron ↗ (talk • she/her) 00:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:At the Time of the Louisville Flood/GA2{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

''Ground Swell ↗''

The first time seeing this work I was at the Corcoran (RIP). I've enjoyed it many times since then at the NGA, including this past Sunday. Anyway, when you wrote ''Western Motel ↗'' did you use books on Internet Archive or do you have physical copies? I was thinking of improving ''Ground Swell'' and curious about what resources might be available online. Hope you're having a fabulous summer. APK '''hi :-)''' (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:I love ''Ground Swell''! I first experienced this on the Big Island ↗ off the coast of Kona while swimming with the dolphin pod. When we came back to shore on the boat around noon or so, the swell was identical to this one, so the painting speaks to my direct experience. As for the sources, I may be able to help in several different ways. Do you use a reference management system like Zotero? It's a good way to keep track and it helps generate bibliographies and save copies of online articles. I recall there's at least one book on IA that has a catalog entry for ''Ground Swell''. I can try to find it for you if you like. Also, I can tag all of the IA sources as url-access=registration in the Hopper articles so you can have a better look at what is available. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

::That's a great core memory. I'm not familiar with Zotero or any other system, but I can investigate that. Thanks for the tip about the book on IA. I'll try to find it along with other sources this weekend. APK '''hi :-)''' (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::If there's a source or book you need that you don't have access to, let me know and I'll try to send it to you by email as a PDF. Everyone uses Zotero ↗ differently based on their use case. For me, I only use it for two reasons, and that is somewhat unique compared to others: 1) to build first drafts that require a lot of sources, and 2) as an archival backup of sources that I've used. It is also helpful to generate citations, even in Wikipedia template form. The ideal use case is for saving copies of WP:TWL ↗ articles without having to log back in every time. That's one of the primary features, IMO. I forgot to also mention that Zotero has several capabilities that facilitate research, such as notes and metadata, and you might find that interesting. Personally, I think Zotero could be made far more useful by adding an outliner ↗ document management system, but I suppose someone on the project thought that wasn't necessary, which was a huge mistake, in my opinion. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ping|APK}} A few sources for you: https://archive.org/details/corcoran-american-art/page/248/mode/2up ↗, https://archive.org/details/capitalcollectio0000elea/page/108/mode/2up ↗, https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/masterpiece-story-ground-swell-edward-hopper/ ↗, https://www.nga.gov/research/publications/online-editions/american-paintings-1900-1945-ground-swell-1939 ↗. The NGA hosting site for the painting also has an extensive bibliography and exhibition history online. Looks like there's a lot of material. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Awesome, thank you so much! APK '''hi :-)''' (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting quotes

I just wanted to say that I think the quotes on your user page are very compelling and insightful. By the way, what is your solution to the ''missing sock problem''? Just curious! 😉 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:WP:SPI ↗? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi Tryptofish, what do you mean by that? The reason I noticed Viriditas' user page is because of the message he left on my talk page (I received an email notifying me of the new message on my talk page). Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::My apologies, I was making a joke, and didn't mean anything by it other than the joke. (I won't be taking up a career as a comedian.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Haha, no problem! I'm not familiar with the English Wikipedia (and with WP:SPI ↗), so that's why the joke went over my head. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for asking. The solution in my case was the socks were being "eaten" as they disappeared into the small space of a top-loading machine, between the rotating wash basket and the outer compartment. Newer, front-loading machines don't have this gap. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::That sounds like a technical answer! I was actually expecting a more philosophical answer – something about alternate realities or parallel universes or something, haha! 😜 But it's certainly an interesting solution! Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Like I said, the answer is different for each person. The jury is still out on what is causing these tiny holes in the bottom of my t-shirts. Reddit has thousands of comments on this topic alone, with no real answer. The leading explanation is that the holes are caused by buttons or zippers on jeans coming into contact with the bottom of the shirt, which seems to make sense. What is unusual is that most people only started reporting this strange phenomenon after the Great Recession, indicating that along with shrinkflation and skimpflation, clothing companies began cutting corners with textiles. Interestingly, this was also around the same time when China began cornering the cotton market and US clothing began to transition to synthetic blends. The truth is out there! Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Haha, would we ever know? 😉 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::What would Agent Mulder do? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I want to believe ! ↗ ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::But don't "''quote''" me on that. (Get it? The section title of this thread? Ha ha!) -----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I hope you and others are following the "Red Lobster" story today. CERN is up to their old tricks again! Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Or follow the white rabbit ↗! 😉 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::This fish is confused. I tried googling "Red Lobster CERN" and got nothing. If this is something where if you told me you'd have to kill me, I'll understand, but otherwise... huh? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Search for "Greenland AND Red Lobster". The CERN thing is an old joke that I've explained to you before on your talk page and has been around forever. It's got a sister joke related to Harambe ↗, and they are often told together. Basically, the way it is usually told is that either a wayward animal interfered with the colliderhttps://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/29/476154494/weasel-shuts-down-world-s-most-powerful-particle-collider ↗ or physicists bifurcated EARTH1 reality into EARTH2, giving us Trump; the story about the death of Harambe is the same. Good hunting! Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::And pop goes the weasel, I get it now. I think you should have killed me{{fbdb}} before reminding me of another rationale for Greenland – and wouldn't that more likely be Chick-Fil-A anyway? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah, I'm convinced it's part of the Russian-style, firehose of falsehood ↗ tactic which Bannon popularized in the US as "flooding the zone ↗". NPR's ''On the Media ↗'' has like a dozen episodes that go into the nitty gritty of how this works and what it is supposed to achieve. Basically, the crazier and more outlandish Trump can get, the more he is able to confuse people. This has a purpose. If you can disrupt consensual reality, then people won't know what to believe is true, and the population will retreat to the edges of society and live in their own private bubbles, having all but given up on participatory democracy. The fact that the leaders of the US are using Russian propaganda tactics against their own people should alarm others. People need to stop saying Russia lost the Cold War. They played the long game and won. They destroyed US democracy, and I'm convinced the earlier efforts at fighting immorality, Communism, drugs, and terrorism may have been a smokescreen by foreign actors to play Americans against each other and have them destroy their own institutions from within. We were played. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not that I want to get sucked into a back and forth about it, but I believe that a backlash against both Trump and Putin is going to come. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::All you can do is be optimistic and hope for the best. However, this follow-up podcast ↗ by Scheppele on the recent changes in Hungary hasn't been covered anywhere else. She makes a very good point that the network of corruption, the infrastructure behind what allowed Viktor Orbán's legal autocracy to function, has ''not'' been dismantled at all, and is just waiting in the wings. The parallel to this shadow infrastructure in the US does not go unnoticed. For example, we have charitable tax deduction laws that have been on the books for a century that have not been repealed by democratic reformers. These laws allow the authoritarian machine to function. We also have the Powell memo ↗ extension of these laws in the 1970s that allows the anti-democratic, anti-institutional rot to eat away at the foundations of democracy. These have not been repealed. We have the Reagan-era, 1980s tough-on-crime erosion of civil liberties laws that are still on the books. Nothing has been repealed. We have the 1990s-era media consolidation laws (extended from the 1980s) that allow for propaganda and disinformation to run rampant. There has been no repeal. We have the 2000s-era of the unitary executive, the patriot act, the anti-terrorism laws, and the erosion of human rights norms. Nothing has been repealed. My point is this: Trump did not start the fire. It has been burning uncontrollably for 50 years and shows no signs of letting up. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I agree about that. And don't get me started on at-will employment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Here's a super interesting and timely high-level overview of the larger problem by Sheri Berman ↗ at Barnard College, Columbia University.https://web.archive.org/web/20260622182424/https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/democracys-troubles-should-be-no-surprise/ ↗ She doesn't mention his name, but all I can say is Sheldon Wolin ↗ was right. He was pretty much ignored by academia from the 1980s until his death in 2015. While I appreciate Berman's perspective, she and others make the same mistake asserting that "Elite assaults on democratic institutions are best understood as the final stage in a longer causal chain. They succeed only when institutions have already lost legitimacy and resilience." I think that prior to the publication of ''Dark Money ↗'' this was true only because we were in the dark about the larger picture. Post-2016, it is surprising that Berman is ''still'' saying this in 2026. I see this problem just about everywhere. People are incapable of changing their views to match the new paradigm. Elite assaults on democratic institutions have been going on for a very long time. They are not a final stage in any true sense. The issue is that the political class of centrists ''refuses'' to counter these assaults, and in some sense, has capitulated to them. Even Obama came out a few months ago in a podcast interview defending the positions of the Peter Thiel-financed "abundance" movement ↗. Neoliberalism and financialization are part of this causal chain. It doesn't help ↗ that the so-called liberal defenders of democracy accept and normalize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:At the Time of the Louisville Flood/GA2{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:Congratulations, Viriditas! Another fine production of yours! It definitely deserves GA status, or even better. --Alan W (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::That's kind of you. I've got four new articles in the queue right now, so it will be a busy month. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Those of us who appreciate quality encyclopedic writing (obviously I think I do) should support one another. There are enough around here who try to drag us down, whether maliciously or inadvertently because they don't understand how all this is supposed to work. --Alan W (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Are you working on anything? I'm genuinely curious. Or do you have a project in mind that you are interested in starting? Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Nothing at the moment. Time is scarce for me. Although I am old enough to have retired, I still work full-time, by choice. Also, when I do have free time, I am often immersed in one of my many self-imposed intensive reading projects. Those sometimes do lead to productive Wikipedia work, as when, during my recent project to digest copious quantities of the fiction of Edith Wharton, I was struck by the absence of anything on Wikipedia about her novel ''The Fruit of the Tree ↗'', so I cooked up something myself. That said, if you want a second pair of eyes applied to any of your articles-in-progress, just ask! --Alan W (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Wharton was required reading in my school, although I wonder if that is still true. I remember being forced to read ''Ethan Frome ↗'' when all I wanted to do was read science fiction 24/7. Amusingly, I found all sorts of ways to inject science fiction into homework assignments, and one was very successful (social studies). That was at a time when there were only ''three'' science fiction books allowed in the U.S. curriculum: ''Brave New World ↗'' (1932), ''Nineteen Eighty-Four ↗'' (1949), and ''Fahrenheit 451 ↗'' (1953). Funny how they only allowed us to read about dystopias, never utopias. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I too had to read ''Ethan Frome ↗'' in high school. Didn't make much of an impression on me then, as with so many things we are forced to read that early. Fast-forward many years (more than I'd like to think), and I recently reread it. I was blown away. Very powerful picture of a darker corner of life off a neglected byway in the U.S. Good point, that about being forced to read about dystopias, never utopias, in our school reading. --Alan W (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I am interested in hearing more about Wharton at some point. I was indulging in a bit of black humor about dystopias. The first thing you learn about writing is that it is almost impossible to write about utopias for the obvious reasons. There are a few, however, that stand out, perhaps loosely defined, that are still taught in U.S. schools. The obvious one is ''The Republic ↗'' (c. 375 BC), although I heard a recent podcast (''In Our Time ↗'', I think?) that reinterpreted it as less of a utopia and more of an authoritarian dictatorship by philosophers. When I was in school, ''Utopia ↗'' (1516) by Thomas More ↗ was still being taught, but I wonder if that is still true. I'm also reminded of ''The City of the Sun ↗'' (1602), which I only first learned about by reading Frances Yates ↗, and of course ''New Atlantis ↗'' (1626), which most Americans don't know about, even though it likely influenced the formation of some aspects of the United States. So it looks like science fiction has a long and influential history despite the educational authorities ignoring it throughout the centuries. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Interesting to hear what you say about the history of science fiction, of which I have read only a little, sporadically, over the years. I have read some Plato, and I think More's ''Utopia ↗'' once way back when. You are impressively well read, and I am storing away some things you mention (not only here but elsewhere on your talk page) for possible future reading. There is so much, and at my age I am constantly reminded that I will not live long enough to read nearly all I want to. About Edith Wharton, a very satisfying reading project of mine. Not nearly enough attention has been paid to many of her fascinating books, maybe because the overall view of life they present is rather bleak, though with bright spots. Her insights—psychological and sociological—are remarkable. I also recently read her non-fiction ''The Writing of Fiction'', and her judgment about her predecessors in the "realistic novel", in some ways following that of her friend Henry James, has now sent me off on another project, reading and rereading much of Balzac, whom they consider the foundation of that subgenre. I don't know if that will lead me to add anything to Wikipedia along those lines, but for now, I am just enjoying what I am involved in. --Alan W (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::You might enjoy the ''Remembrance of Earth's Past ↗'' (notice the allusion to ''In Search of Lost Time ↗'') series, popularly known as ''Three-Body''. Oddly, someone on the Wikipedia entry dismissed it as Chinese propaganda, but I don't know where that comes from or how it even makes sense. (And you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia!) What I like about the series of books is how the author Liu Cixin ↗ shows off their deep knowledge of science fiction, and incorporates it as homage throughout the work. Kim Stanley Robinson ↗ is another writer you might enjoy. His world building ↗ in the Mars trilogy ↗ is spectacular, and makes for some great reading. Unlike many popular science fiction authors, Robinson excels with characters, and that puts him in a class by himself. Many authors in this style tend to place character secondary to the wider, grand scope of cosmic-scale settings and plot, and that is one legitimate gripe I have with the genre. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Interesting to hear your further thoughts about science fiction, and thanks for the recommendations. --Alan W (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::I hope you have some free time for reading in the next few days! Viriditas (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, thanks, a bit more than usual. While I am storing recommendations in the back of my mind, right now it's on with my Balzac project. --Alan W (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Are you working your way through all 16 volumes of his collected works? Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, this reading project is not quite as ambitious as some of my others. I can see how Balzac is an important forerunner in the realm of "realistic fiction", but he is not as much to my taste as some others (I feel he verges too often on melodrama, for one thing), and there are just too many other books by other authors I want to catch up on. --Alan W (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I am interested in the literary succession from Balzac to Zola. I wrote a little bit about Zola's influence (which was due to Balzac, but not mentioned in the article) in ''The Hangover ↗''. I think I originally wanted to add Balzac to the "Themes" section but I couldn't do so without a secondary source, so I had to leave it out. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Zola! Another author I have read some of, but not in many, many years. Maybe I'll read something else by him in the near future. I think that with Zola, we are in a sub-realm of realistic fiction, "naturalistic" fiction. Again, interesting, but not as much to my taste as some others. There is so much to be said about all this, and my head is spinning just thinking about it. --Alan W (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::What most fascinated me about writing ''The Hangover'' (and a few other related articles in the same vein) was the crossover influences between writers, visual artists, and musicians. This is something you don't really read about all that much these days, but it does show up throughout the years when you look for it. I discovered it in the 1880s, the 1930s, and the 1960s, but I also found elements of it (in different combinations) in the 1980s and later. What's so fascinating about ''The Hangover'' is how overt it is. ''The Hangover'' is a literary theme by Zola and other writers, a song by Bruant, and an artistic motif by Degas, Manet, and Lautrec, among others. This idea that the visual arts are entirely separate from other disciplines has always struck me as odd. I recently ran into a similar idea when writing about Hopper, as his paintings have influenced several works of poetry, and of course, filmmaking itself. Which is a bit ironic, as this is a good example of an influence folding back on itself, as Hopper was an avid filmgoer who incorporated many of the ideas he saw in film into his paintings, which were then viewed by filmmakers who used them in their films. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Excellent points! All is connected and may be traced to the same source: the human imagination. --Alan W (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::About that: I hate to be Debbie Downer ↗, but I've been closely following the decline of the human imagination since 2008. There's many factors at work, including the decline of reading, financialization and derivative culture, the impact of the internet on cognition, and of course, media bias. When you put it all together, the future looks very much like "The Machine Stops ↗" (1909), with even more autocracy and authoritarianism than anyone ever imagined. I feel like Julia Angwin ↗ is my spirit animal. Check her out if you haven't heard of her. She understands what is happening and has spoken out about it while others keep their heads down and stay quiet. The election of Trump made me realize that half of all Americans are cowards and love authoritarianism. This is what we are dealing with. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I'll add that we compartmentalize to understand. Excess compartmentalization, however, becomes self-defeating. --Alan W (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I understand that's how 95% of the world operates, but I've never functioned that way, even from the time I was a child, and I've never really advocated for it. It's also the cause of most of the problems on Earth. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Whew! I can't say I disagree as far as I can grasp what you're saying, but there is a lot to absorb. Another one I'll want to look into eventually, Julia Angwin. I don't like getting into political discussions on Wikipedia, but I will say that I am very much on the anti-authoritarianism side, so we probably wouldn't disagree about much politically. Who knows where this country is headed? A very murky future right now. Things certainly don't bode well. --Alan W (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Viriditas. Thank you for your work on Martin Mycielski ↗. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Nice start!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Mariamnei<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{Re|Mariamnei}} Hi, this message should have been sent to {{noping|Stansfield}}.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Mycielski&diff=1362106143&oldid=1273357430 ↗ Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry about that. @Stansfield has already responded to me. Have a wonderful day! Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 09:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I am at a loss as to who's addressing whom, but I wish a great day (or evening) to both of you! 😀 Stansfield (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

User Talk: Viriditas

Archives

January music

Precious anniversary

''Casablanca''-related personal anecdote

DYK for The Other America (speech)

Draft:Desegregation of Atlanta schools ↗

February music

DYK for Oceanic Steamship Company

DYK for List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company

DYK for Western Motel

DYK from Wing Sun Fong

A barnstar for you!

input request

Template:Did you know nominations/Tolkien: Man and Myth ↗

Can you help?

DYK for Marie Engle

DYK nomination of Halloween Martin

March music

DYK for Halloween Martin

Nice Job with Halloween Martin ↗

":People's Republic of Santa Monica ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Fortunate Crossing of Wiki-Paths

The state of things

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

DYK for Robert Uzgalis

Wishing you well

April music

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is under review

File:Jerry Bird 2019 International Skydiving Hall of Fame interview.jpg listed for discussion

Thanks

Atropa bella-donna ↗

Room in Brooklyn ↗ image

DYK hook length

May music

Museum

DYK for Room in Brooklyn

June music

Edits to At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is under review

DYK for Josefino Comiso

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ is on hold

''Ground Swell ↗''

Interesting quotes

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood ↗ has passed

I have sent you a note about a page you started