Contents

Talk:Musca depicta

A fact from Musca depicta appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that many 15th- and 16th-century European paintings included a conspicuous depiction of a common fly (example pictured)? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Musca depicta.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Aware that this article's title is potentially misleading as it's not a valid scientific name (unlike the real species of fly, Musca domestica), I moved it to Musca depicta (illustration) to avoid confusion. This seems especially important for users searching on the scientific binomial. However, the article creator has moved it back again, which I don't agree with, so I seek consensus here as to the most appropriate title for this page. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy says we do not add disambiguating quailifiers for titles which have a single meaning. I fail to see how can this be confusing: it is sufficient to read the first line of the article. Really, don't treat readers as idiots; modern American liberal education does this successfully without help from Wikipedia. Nevertheless nobody is worried that Lupus Hellinck is not a skin disease and if someone decides that Canis MajorisBig Bad Wolf then the problem is certainly in his head, not in Wikipedia.. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: promotedbyTheleekycauldron (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detail from a Clara Peeters painting

• ... that many 15th- and 16th-century European paintings included a conspicuous depiction of a common fly (example pictured)?^[1][2]
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Lembit Staan (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Looking. Needs some work on prose, will comment on criteria after am happy with that. Interesting page for sure, but dont like the word "conspicuous" in the hook..prominent? Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consulted the dictionary for ythese two words and I se that conspicuous is the correct word choice in this context. Uses by the source, by the way.Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  :"and its presence may be explained by various reasons" isn't really good for a lead that might get to the main page. Overall, I dont think the writing is good enough, you dont seem open to correction, further I don't think you have nailed why this should even be an article. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just delete the word "conspicuous" from the hook? It still works without it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a thorough copyedit and fixed formatting of the hook. As someone who's noticed these flies in paintings before and always wondered what their purpose was, I quite like this article. Short but sweet and seemingly comprehensive in its inclusion of all the viewpoints. Also as the subject has a whole book written about it (and some fairly beefy scholarly articles) I'm sure it meets the GNG. I also tried substituting different synonyms for "conspicuous" but I think it works best. Meets length and newness requirements, facts appear in the given sources. QPQ exempt (only one other self-nom, which I believe is this one). DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lembit Staan and DigitalIceAge: what would you think about swapping the image out for the one in the lead? Gives it a kind of "Where's Wally?" (i always thought it was waldo) vibe, imo. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a neat idea, I'm down. Also I forgot to mention Earwig detected no close paraphrasing (I spotchecked with the Steve Connor source and found none), and the one print source I could check also revealed no close paraphrasing. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToT:DYK/P4 with modified image

Could flies have been depicted because they were more of a part of everyday life back then? I don't know if people could keep flies out of their buildings like now, as the window screen was invented around 1840. Greg Dahlen (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]