Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Question

hello,

if I nominate an article about a person who died on December 10, would he get that anniversary points? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, unless the manner of his death is really, really significant. If he is best known because he was killed, that might be.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink

I posted McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink in the box above. I would like some opinions on whether similarity points will be limited to restaurants and sports venues or whether a more broad array of architectural structures will count against it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Consistently with every time the topic has come up, you have the array. Otherwise we could divide the topic so finely that we could have several buildings in a row, each claiming main page representation points.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Except it could be argued that an outdoor ice rink is not really a building. It is just so different from other buildings that this might be more than refining a category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but where does Crown Fountain enter into the equation?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit excessive for there to be another article about something to do with Millennium Park so soon. Wikipedia is going to end up looking like a front for the Chicago Tourism Board. Coolug (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

November 10th

The Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975

The SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a 729-foot (222 m) Great Lakes freighter that made headlines after sinking in a Lake Superior massive storm with near hurricane-force winds and 35-foot (11 m) waves on November 10, 1975. The Fitzgerald suddenly sank approximately 17 miles (27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay, at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Her crew of 29 perished without sending any distress signals, and no bodies were recovered; she is the largest boat to have sunk in the Great Lakes. The Fitzgerald carried taconite from mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo and other ports. Her size, record-breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" endeared the Fitzgerald to boat watchers. Many theories, books, studies and expeditions have examined the cause of the sinking. Her sinking is one of the most well-known disasters in the history of Great Lakes shipping and is the subject of Gordon Lightfoot's 1976 hit song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". (more...)

Comment by nominator Additional note: Since the fall of 2010 our objective has been to achieve FA status and then have this be the article of the day for November 10th, 2011, the anniversary of her sinking. We achieved FA on May 6th. We believe that several things may make this particularly interesting for Wikipedia readers. A 729 foot (222 meter) long ship that sank in a storm in a lake that had 35 (11 meter) foot high waves. There were no survivors, and so to this day there are many theories but no answer as to how and why she sank. The ship and sinking were also made famous by the Gordon Lightfoot song. I am putting this up one day early (and have asked others to watch and provide any responses, I hope I did it properly) because starting tomorrow I will be off the grid (where cell phone doesn't even reach) for 10 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• One point Assuming North8000 has contributed to a past TFA, one point for date relevance. I don't see any others but I've been wrong before. Often.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  This is my first. I'm one of the main two editors, but many others have helped and contributed. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Two points--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

________________________ I moved this article here on realizing that it was a sixth article with not enough points to replace anyone. It will have to wait for a vacancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A vacancy opened and I copied it to the main date request page. I've not done this before. Please correct me if I've done anything incorrectly. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to bump this nomination back off the list; M-6 is being nominated for a tenth anniversary which gives it one more point, and the Fitz had fewer supports than the other 2-point nomination (Governor of Kentucky). The Statue of Liberty article should hopefully be scheduled soon which will free up a slot to return the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Some articles were scheduled, opening up a vacancy, so I've restored the nomination, minus the addition commentary, to the main page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lester Brain & Harry Cobby

Hi all, I recently put Harry Cobby in the pending queue for 11 November, Armistice Day, the dual connection being that he was the Australian Flying Corps' top-scoring ace in World War I, and he died that day in 1955. I notice today that another article I took to FA, Lester Brain, civil air pioneer, has been chosen as TFA on 29 October. I'd love to see Brain as TFA sometime but likewise Cobby, so what's the feeling on having two Australian aviators two weeks apart? Of course Cobby may get competition for Armistice Day anyway, but I haven't seen anything else pending for that date yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Hello, I want to nominate Battle of Tippecanoe for Nov 7, which has 8-12 points. I don't want to remove someone else's request inappropriately. It is the 200th anniversary of the battle (+6), it is a two-year old featured article (+2), I have never requested a TFA before (+1), but my content has been featured before (-1?), I have not seen any recent War of 1812 articles featured (+1), but there are recent articles on battles that have been featured (-1?). Regardless two hundredth anniversary! We can't miss that. :) Thank you in advance for you advise on proceeding. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean November 7th, which is what the article says? I make it 6 points: 200th anniversary (6); over 2 years since promotion (2); no points for or against for contributor history (you only get a point if no FA of yours has made it to the Main Page, no matter how it got there, but no points are deducted for those clever people with more than one FA in their history); at present, the last battle article to run is Battle of Valcour Island (October 11) (-2 points for a similar article within 1 month - we don't break down "similar" by conflicts, otherwise we could run a WW2 article on Monday, a WW1 article on Tuesday, an 1812 article on Wednesday, a Vietnam War article on Thursday etc, each claiming not to be "similar" - we also tend to say that sports articles are sports articles, rather than breaking them down into (various forms of) football, cricket, underwater badminton etc).

At 6 points, you can't nominate yet; you'll need to wait until the first line under "Summary chart" lets you - at present it reads Currently accepting requests from October 12 to November 11 (only up to November 1 if the entry would have five or more points). As long as the article is still in good condition, I can't see why there would be any problems - no 6-point nomination has ever been "bumped off" the chart, and Raul/Dabomb do seem to like using nominations wherever possible.

If you have problems at nomination time, just ask here and someone will help you format the blurb as per the instructions overleaf. Good luck! Bencherlite^Talk 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So there are now four suggestions, each with a lower point count than this article. Would now be the appropriate time to replace the lowest point article with this one? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you could, but as you can put it on the page whenever you want, why not wait a few days to see if Raul or Dabomb schedules the earliest nomination on the page? Always better to fill a vacancy rather than bump if you possibly can.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, no you can't - articles worth 6 points cannot yet be nominated for dates beyond 4th November (see thread below for discussion). At 6 points, you will always be able to bump an article off if push turns to shove, so there's no need to panic just yet! Bencherlite^Talk 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread the calendar. You know, calendars, those paper things, you sometimes see them in antique shops?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Shops? You mean those places we used to enter to purchase things before the internet was invented? Ah yes, I remember them well - lots of closed ones near where I live. Can't think why... Bencherlite^Talk 17:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been terribly busy off-wiki in RL. (That pesky place) If someone else wanted to be very kind, they could nominate this article and shepherd it through the process for Nov 7, the 200th anniversary. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me make sure I have this right...

Earlier today I tried to add a nomination for Battle of Tippecanoe for November 7, with 5 points. (+6 bicentennial; +2 FA over two years; -3 similar article in past two weeks, the upcoming Battle of Lipantitlán on Nov. 4). This was deleted because there are already five date-specific noms. (I had misunderstood this restriction.) Reading over this again, my understanding is that it would be appropriate to instead to replace one of the current noms with the Battle of Tippecanoe nomination--per the guidelines, at this moment it would be the Governor of Kentucky nom for November 8--it's tied among current noms for least points (2) and at the moment it has 10 support and 1 oppose, while the SS Edmund Fitzgerald nom currently has 7 support and 0 oppose. Is this correct? Anything else I would need to do to the Governor of Kentucky nom other than just deleting it from the page? And the summary table would be updated by "regulars" here, not by me, correct? Thanks for your help; this is my first time making a Today's Featured Article nomination. Chuck (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to TFA, Chuck. You are right - you would just remove it from the page and add your nomination. You can update the table if you want or leave it for someone else. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If availability for a nomination frees back up and one of the deleted nominations gets re-added for the same date it was originally nominated for, would the supports/opposes get re-added as well, or would everything start back at square one? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything can be added back, provided it's for the same date, and there's a note that this has been reinstated. Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Karanacs. Did so and updated the table. Chuck (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Zelda removed

I understand that I'm probably too late to change anything. But I don't see why the release of a new COD game has been given priority over the new Zelda. Is it just because Zelda comes out later?

The explanation I got was "list 3 similar articles for one day is unnecessary" only one was ever going to get onto the main page, it was just a case of take your pick. "the release of a new video game doesn't count as a "relevant date" people seemed ok with it in the case of COD, "all have zero to negative points" that's only because of the COD article.

I understand that we can't have both in such a short space of time and I also understand COD is a big series, I enjoy their games myself, but I would say Zelda is a bigger series. Shouldn't it big given priority?BUC (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The COD article was not accepted for featuring on the same day as the launch of the new entry in the series but was accepted for a few days earlier instead. Several people opposed featuring it on November 8th because of the promotional benefit it would have given to the publishers. To be honest, I think that would have sunk the Zelda articles, which as I understand it you wanted to feature on the same day as the latest Zelda game being released. I would have objected to featuring them on that date because of the commercial/promotional implications, and I think others would have said the same. Bear in mind that Wikipedia's Main Page is one of the world's most-read web pages and its commercial value is immense - we need to be very careful not to give the impression that it can be used as a billboard. But that doesn't mean the articles can't be run on a different date that is less commercially sensitive. Prioryman (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential request for 14 December: Amundsen's South Pole expedition

I understand as well as anyone that TFA requests can only be made for articles that are already featured. A potential request is a different matter - an informal indicator that a request may be made for a certain article on a certain date, even though the article may not be featured yet. A couple of weeks ago I put down a marker re Amundsen's South Pole expedition for 14 December, the centenary of the South Pole conquest, an important anniversary. The article is currently a featured candidate with several supports. I thought it would be useful for this page to be aware of this centenary, but my entry was removed a few days ago, without my being told. So I will leave my marker here; if and when the article becomes featured I will nominate it in the normal way. Brianboulton (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible Halloween noms

I think it's about time we start discussing what our Halloween TFA is going to be. Also keep in mind that because Day of the Dead takes place on November 1 and 2, any death-related articles we end up rejecting for Halloween could still be run on those days with date relevance.

Here are some ideas I've thought of so far. There are probably other options too:

• The Human Centipede (First Sequence): Originally nominated by User: Coolug for earlier this month to coincide with the release of the sequel; consensus was against scheduling this article for that date so as not to give the appearance of promoting the sequel.
• London Necropolis Company
• Myotis alcathoe, Miniopterus aelleni, Miniopterus griveaudi, Pipistrellus raceyi, and Myotis escalerai, all species of bats.
• Amanita ocreata, also known as the Angel of Death
• Hanged, drawn and quartered
• Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Difluoroethene (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to a Halloween-theme article running on October 31. This year. On the understanding that next year we might, or might not do the same thing. We have to remember that much of the English-speaking world calls Halloween "that odd American holiday" even though I've seen Halloween wares in UK stores. If we're going to do it, I'd say the centipede simply because Coolug got his head handed to him and perhaps it would be good to let the article he put a lot of work into (regardless of what you think about the subject matter) run.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Bride of Frankenstein? It's a horror film, but a slightly more famous, influential one which contributed the generic iconography of Frankenstein's monster to every single following adaptation. This choice would mean that this brilliant PD picture of Boris Karloff could be the accompanying image. Bob talk 18:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I support Bride of Frankenstein. Family-friendly, classic and influential. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Human Centipede

I restate opposition to featuring Human Centipede on the main page, because its sadistic content and the worse content of its sequel, which includes murdering of a mother, torturing a pregnant woman, etc. A few minutes exposure gave me nightmares, honestly. The British authorities have banned the latter film because it threatens to cause harm to the public.

Second, I believe that everybody but myself stated (some) appreciation for Coolug's efforts, so it is an exaggeration to say that "his head was handed to him". Nonetheless, the community overwhelmingly opposed featuring Human Centipede on the main page, with many stating an objection based on its sadism, albeit apologetically, alas. Those objections will remain.

The majority opposed featuring it now to avoid promoting the sequel. Wait at least one year before nominating this article for the main-page, to reduce the concerns about promoting a movie featured at IMDB at its just released list.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Brits reversed their ban on the second film after filmmakers did a little more editing. This article is also not about the second film, but about the first one - thoughts on the content of the second film (or its article here) should not weigh into the decision. Our precedent has not been to wait a year after the release of a sequel to have other movies/video games/tv shows on the main page.

I'd be much more inclined to hold my objections if Human Centipede were on the main page on Halloween instead of a different date. I still wish I'd never read it, but that's not due to the quality of the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My thought on this is that talking about running them is unproductive, running them stops the waste of time. My suggestion has been, if you're worried about what people will see, run it on a weekend or better yet at the end of the year or 4th of July weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked Raul654 if the article would be going onto his banned list and he told me it would not, he also summed up a fair bit of what I was thinking with regard to editors objections far better than somebody of my limited intellectual means could ever manage. (see here). I'm happy to nominate it for Halloween if any editors are happy to support it. I do think that confusing this article with it's horrible sequel is a little reactionary and frankly there are a lot of very boring articles that find their way to the main page and get completely ignored by 99% of wikipedia readers (I often think that outside of our world, being a wikipedia reader and a wikipedia editor are completely different things - I'm still shocked by how many people fail to realise that anyone really can edit this thing). Coolug (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the page view stats for both articles, what's really interesting is that wikipedia readers are largely ignoring the article for the horrible sequel - yesterday for example it only received about 5% of the views of the article about the first film. The horrible sequel seems to receive a spike of views whenever it's in the news (eg after the BBFC ban was lifted or the film was released in the USA) but largely the article is slipping way below 1,000 views per day towards the territory of articles about fungus or obscure episodes of soviet history. Meanwhile the article about the first film is as popular as ever. I wonder if readers read the section on the sequel which says the film was banned for being potentially obscene (but does not detail what exactly is so obscene as it's not really necessary and might upset some readers) and then think "Ok well I'll ignore that". Coolug (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

EDIT - Ok, just been looking at the stats again and I'm not sure how I got this information, the article is receiving a fair few views after all :) About half the views of the first film, which seeing as the first films article is so popular is actually a hell of a lot. Oops. cya Coolug (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Coolug, I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that you go ahead and nominate this for Hallowe'en. There seems to be some support building for this here, and on your user talk page. While I still think that the subject matter is horrible, it's a very popular and widely-read article, and it is one of a tiny number of featured articles about horror movies. On Hallowe'en, readers will be less shocked to see the article on the main page, and I think that any concerns about promoting the sequel are even less relevant now that it no longer coincides with the release date. Finally, noting that a precedent exists for articles about distasteful subjects and extreme horror films on the main page, I can offer my support for a nomination in this date context. Papa November (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Do you know why it's "popular"? It's because the Human centipede is somewhat of a shock trailer video or topic. That's why people search it up on Google and land on the wiki page, and get informed (a bit too well informed, if you ask me) on the human centipede. It's quite sickening (to me) especially when you have to see it every single time you go to the front page of Wikipedia and when your stomach is full. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Agree with Papa November. Coolug's article is an accomplishment, well done! Nothing in the article nor the film is distasteful except the concept. Is Wikipedia going to disregard Raul's (and the general readership of Wikipedia's) opinion? Are we such prudes that we censor what the public finds fascinating? Halloween is the ideal choice. What else could be such a match? (Most past Halloween choices have been quite boring.) Manny may (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - In the end we all have to understand the irony in this film. I see no problems with featuring it on the main page.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for it, but there are already five date specific requests up. No one can put anything else up until one of them gets selected or removed from the list for any reason. Coolug (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding, and I don't know how many points this nomination would have, but I think that if it'd have more than two points you could go ahead and nominate this for October 31st right now in accordance with rule #3. (It would replace the Governor of Kentucky nomination for November 8th, I think.) I fully support this nom. AgnosticAphid talk 22:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, on any date The subject matter of the article is frankly extremely disturbing and filthy. I don't deny that this is out of personal interest. My little sister views Wikipedia's main page on a regular basis. I don't want her to see this, and I'm fairly certain that the majority of readers wouldn't want to read this either. This would also generally reflect very badly on the project. --The Dark Peria (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"I'm fairly certain that the majority of readers wouldn't want to read this either" - the 39,200 viewers yesterday might differ in opinion. At the last count, this is currently Wikipedia's 903rd most popular article! Yes, it's horrible, but it's certainly not short of interested readers. Papa November (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the article is an FA, then it deserves to appear as TFA. It's only a film, and far less gruesome than Hanged, drawn and quartered, the contents of which actually happened in real life. Support Parrot of Doom 23:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've prepared a quick blurb in my sandbox (User:Coolug/sandbox). Any thoughts on the appropriateness of the image (which is free use hooray!) or my lengthy introduction would be appreciated. I'm not sure if what I've written is a little bit too confrontational or not. Please don't edit it or add support or opposition on the page however, as it's my sandbox and I reserve the right to use the area for other stuff whenever I feel like it :) Coolug (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm not in favour of "cover the Sun with a finger", especially if the article is highly visited. 31 October seems fine for the article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support We've had other fictional works of so-called "disgusting" fictional works, such as Reign in Blood on the front page. Why not Human Centipede? Wikipedia is not censored and any topic that is a featured article has the right to appear on the front page. This new horror fiction oriented article would be very appropriate for Halloween. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Seems the ideal candidate to me. Lugnuts (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per statements above and WP:CENSORMAIN, which I wholly agree with. Halloween is a kid/family holiday where "scary" is supposed to be safe and fun. This ≠ sick and profoundly disturbing. If the article as an FA must be featured, fine. Whatever. But not on a holiday like Halloween, which, for all its contemporary mock ghoulishness, is a family event. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, kids will probably be less likely to be reading Wikipedia on Halloween, because many of them will be busy trick or treating. Difluoroethene (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I really don't buy into this idea that children are going to be traumatised by the concept of the human centipede. From my experience of working with children (and no I have never actually discussed the human centipede with a child) I suspect the reaction would be more "eww that's gross!" than being actually upset by the idea. Coolug (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, it struck me that there are things on wikipedia that are far more unsettling than some stupid gross horror film about a comic book villain doing something disgusting, including things that probably could actually scare children. One of them is being buried alive - a rather prominent theme in the main page article on Halloween 2009. Now that's properly scary. By comparison the human centipede is, whilst of course in rather bad taste, pretty tame. People really do get buried alive and it's not a very nice thing to think about. Coolug (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:CENSORMAIN is an essay not policy. Lugnuts (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support and agree that kids would think it was "eeww - gross" just as they would about a squished animal. We are putting adult thoughts into the minds of kids. Plus, in the US, Halloween is becoming more and more an adult holiday. Sure kids tricker treat (tho they have to be guarded by parents now), but adults goes by the masses to costume parties where they usually dress up in gory outfits. AlbertBowes (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't feel that this would be a particularly good choice to highlight on this particular date, being as it is about a somewhat unpleasant adult film. Although I can see the validity of Parrot of Doom's comment that some of the other articles, ie hanged, drawn and quartered are even more unpleasant and more importantly real, I wonder whether on this date people might be looking for something more "traditionally spooky", ie in the general theme of Halloween being about "ghosts and ghouls". Of the candidates, I would personally favour the London Necropolis Company. Looking around, I also thought Bride of Frankenstein might be quite a nice choice, especially because we could include this iconic image. Bob talk 18:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Although they were promoted about 4 years ago (and might need tidying up) Halloween II and III are both FAs that have not been TFA. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Halloween II was TFA in 2007 - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2007 Coolug (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I fail to see why not. And besides, while its about a mad man creating a centipede out of three people "mouth-to-butt", truth is stranger than fiction. GamerPro64 20:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• I do not oppose the article (or indeed, any article) being banned from TFA at any point in time. I think it would be insulting to an editor who put so much work into an FA to be told "no, we won't allow your article on the main page because the subject matter is icky" (which is what this ultimately boils down to), especially when such a thing is anathema to Wikipedia culture. As people have pointed out, Cannibal Holocaust and Gropecunt Lane have both been on the main page before. However, I think that Bride of Frankenstein should be on the main page this Halloween, just as a matter of personal preference. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've nominated it! Those who have already stated the support or opposition here should probably go and repeat their comments on the proper page. The article has a score of minus 1 :) So in theory someone could be a jerk and replace it with their article on Moss or something, but hopefully no one will do that :) Coolug (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This was a disgusting and shameful decision to put this article on the main page. Wikipedia is viewed by millions of people each day, including many children, and the content of this article is franky not appropiate in *any* public setting, let alone such a popular Internet site! This is an utterly irresponsible decision by the administrators here, and I hope punitive measures will be taken from here. Noldorin (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When did WP:NOTCENSORED mean a license for stupidity? Rich Farmbrough, 03:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

People have different ideas of what is and what's not distasteful. While nobody denies that the concept of the movie is, the blurb that went on the main page and the article were written in pretty good-taste, aside from having to describe the concept of the film within the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Having spent many hours on Meta advocating for the status quo in terms of censorship (i.e. against the initial image filter proposals) partly on the grounds that no one but a vandal (against whom the image filter would be useless) would put widely offensive content where it wouldn't be expected to be seen, to find that not only this article but an image of forced coprophagy on the main page does strike me as de facto unwise. The fact that there were a significant number of respected users opposing should have given all the supporters pause. This was clearly going to be at least somewhat controversial, and the potential downside is huge. At the very least wider input should have been sought. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

Tru dat, and see Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page. Here's the bottom line: if the editors handling the main page wished to change the perception of themselves as a group from "skilled and productive editors who contribute to an important element of the Wikipedia in which we can take pride" to "trolls who will need to be carefully watched in future, to the detriment of other productive work", this was an excellent way to do that. Next time, a well-publicized RfC, please. Thanking you in advance, Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I just put in a comment that was sort of against rather than voting. I was hesitant to oppose due to avoiding censorship. But in hindsight, avoiding highlighting it is not censorship. North8000 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's been a week, other than the fact that some people were offended by the article, what actually happened? I'd be interested to know about the negative consequences of this TFA. That is if there actually were any, which I suspect there won't have been. Coolug (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What's happened? - My attitude to Wikipedia has changed. I'm still a fan and will contribute what I can when I have the time, but I can see the beginning of the end of the project. I was (and am) not against the article, just it's inclusion as the TFA. I am saddened by the fact that this was successfully gamed with no obvious backlash.--ML5 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think I "gamed" the system by a) writing an article b) getting the thing to eventually pass FA and c) nominating it for TFA then I'm surprised you didn't lose your faith in Wikipedia sooner. I don't think it especially shocking that an editor would want to see his or her work displayed on the front page. I nominated it because I'd worked bloody hard on the stupid thing and was (and still am) proud that I'd got an article that most people would probably have expected to be complete rubbish (the quality of the article not the film, the film is pretty crap) to such a high standard. If you think I'm part of some grand conspiracy to either sell more DVDs or to simply ruin the project then I'm afraid you're wrong. I think the overall result of the Halloween TFA is probably nothing at all. It was just a link to an article on a webpage. If there was anyone out there genuinely traumatised by the article blurb then I really think they need to get a life. Coolug (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right - it's my perception of Wikipedia that's wrong. Although I haven't lost all faith, I have lost some faith. Again, I'm not against the article, and I don't think that there's any conspiracy to sell DVDs or ruin anything. I just had some (misplaced) faith that the checks and balances of 'the consensus' would not have allowed such a controversial article to be used to promote the Wikipedia brand.--ML5 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has run. It won't run again under the current set of rules. My thought has been to run the controversial articles just to get them out of the way. If it's a serious issue, ask the foundation for the day of the year we get the fewest clicks, and pick the winner, unless it is Christmas or Thanksgiving for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 November 2011‎

Perfect Storm 1991

Perfect Storm 1991 is not a Halloween-themed article, but it does have date relevance. Should it be considered as an option? Difluoroethene (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to propose it, since it is also known as the Halloween nor'easter. It could also be November 1, when it became a tropical cyclone. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Much rather see this than the above article. If hink nominates, article gets two points. I would have rather done Grace Sherwood (a real-life spooky story, unlike that film), but that isn't a FA. HurricaneFan25 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Be an interesting article to run, weather on this day or another. I'm looking forward to seeing the hurricanes I've lived through one of these days, such as Andrew and Hugo, and though I was a bit young, Camille.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Seeing as this hurricane was in existence over a few days, would you consider not nominating it for October 31, but one of the surrounding days? Halloween is basically the only day in the year when Human Centipede might stand any chance whatsoever. But on a hands down points fight, almost anything beats it - there was a film article on the main page at the beginning of the month so I've calculated Centipede to have a score of minus one :) There are about seven supports above so whilst not universally popular (there are two very strong opposes too), there's certainly some demand. It would be cool though to see a more popular article (400k views in past month!) on the main page on this date. cya! Coolug (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I'd love if it was on November 1st then. I'll propose it for then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it too late to put this up as a request? It's a little annoying; I have this page watched, but it seems that so many other people do as well. Every time there is an opening, someone comes in and adds there before I can put this up. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. From what I can gather plenty of articles get selected without the formality of being included in the five up for supports/opposes. I would suggest preparing a box with a decent image and putting it in a sandbox or somewhere (maybe even on this talk page in one of these hidden things) so that something is ready for the boss to use. Seeing as the date is on the 'suggested upcoming' with a few points and editors saying they'd support it (I will too btw) I wouldn't be too shocked if it was selected. However, I am far from an authority on these things so don't take my word as gospel. cya! Coolug (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! In case anyone is watching, here is a writeup that could be used. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what Coolug says is accurate. The squeaky wheel gets the grease around here, really. Best to run articles someone cares about in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona for 7 December

Dank and I are working to get the USS Arizona (BB-39) article through FAC in time for 7 December. He's putting the finishing touches on it as I write and we should be able to submit in the next day or so. We should be able to get it promoted in time if we can get some reviewers interested. I'm not going to make a formal submission until he's polished it a bit and the lede is better finalized, but I though that I'd alert y'all that we may have it ready to better prepare for that day's TFA. I figure that it would have four points, two for 70th anniversary and two for 22 languages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously highly appropriate, especially since this is a decennial anniversary.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's currently at FAC and here's the proposed lede for y'all to kick around:

USS Arizona, a Pennsylvania-class battleship, was built for the United States Navy in the mid-1910s. Although commissioned in 1916, the ship remained stateside during World War I. The ship was sent to Turkey in 1919 at the beginning of the Greco-Turkish War to represent American interests for several months. Several years later, she was transferred to the Pacific Fleet and was assigned to it for the rest of her career. Aside from a comprehensive modernization in 1929–31, the ship spent most of her time between the wars training, including participation in the annual Fleet Problems. Arizona was anchored nearby when the 1933 Long Beach earthquake struck and her crew aided the survivors. Two years later, the ship was featured in a Warner Brothers film about the romantic troubles of a sailor. In 1940, she was transferred to her new base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii as a deterrent to the Japanese Empire. Arizona is most widely known for her sinking during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, with the loss of 1,177 lives. The attack provoked the United States into declaring war on Japan, thereby entering World War II. Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged that day, she could not be fully salvaged, though the navy removed parts of the ship for reuse. The wreck still lies at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. The USS Arizona Memorial, dedicated in 1962 to all those who died during the attack, straddles the ship's hull.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Emergency TFAs and so forth

For the benefit of those sleeping off their turkey, we had a mild problem this morning with TFA, as none had been selected. In the emergency, those community members who were awake decided to run the nonspecific date nominee, the video game, and decided to put aside three blurbs for emergency use in future. It seems Dabomb had a personal emergency and no internet access; Raul has not yet checked in. The link to those articles are at the top of the page. And there is nothing magic about the choice of articles. While I am sure we are all going to be watching this for a time, no matter how many human backups we put in we are only human. Would it be technically feasible to have a bot automatically take one off that page if no selection has been made by 2359? As we know, vigilance decreases with time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't know on the feasibility; maybe we could cc Ucucha to this discussion? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

An "emergency list" looks pretty sensible. As to feasibility, it'd mean a bot checking a few minutes earlier and making the appropriate edits (then spamming a notice to various talkpages as needed). DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) does something quite similar already - see, eg, this notification. Shimgray | talk | 19:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not have it check at midnight? That way it's unlikely that Raul will be edit conflicted while trying to insert a last minute article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into writing this in a few weeks when I'll have more time (assuming Raul and Dabomb are OK with it). Where is the emergency list located? Ucucha (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Check the header at the top of the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that shouldn't be too hard to do from that format. Ucucha (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not check at 11:50? If Raul and Dabomb know that's the hard deadline, I doubt they'll edit conflict, but why wait til midnight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, I suppose. Raul and Dabomb will know that if they skate close to the edge, they may have some cleanup to do. Might save some heart palpitation from main page watchers. I like that, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I just chucked in a reasonably encyclopedic bird in the nonspecific slot if we want to get a bit of a buffer happening. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

At Portal:U.S. Roads, we have a system where if we forget to update the portal in time for the month turnover, the last month's page is displayed until we fix the mess. Perhaps the Main Page could do this, as it's better than a redlink? --Rschen7754 23:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Second non-specific slot

PS: Does anyone think that maybe having two nonspec slots is a good idea, to help with a bit of a buffer? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. Perhaps it's time to concede the experiment has been a success, and declare victory. The thing is, TFA/R as a whole is underused, so a second article could be stuck into a date slot.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're ready for two, but defer to Raul and Dabomb87. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep - happy to defer to them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, it is about what is useful for them, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• As Saturn was a non-specific date, and the second one at a time and no one objected, and neither Dabomb nor Raul has expressed a problem with it, I've taken the great and horrible liberty, for which I will no doubt be placed in boiling oil, of modfying the template and rules for the continuation. If I am out of line, please feel free to revert me and I shall be duly abashed, well, not so much really.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me (not to mention there's too much boiling oil goin' round anyway). Scheduling TFA is a hard and thankless job, they get picked apart every day at WP:ERRORS and skewered by unhappy editors Who Want Their Slot. When was the last time anyone acknowledged either of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I will raise a glass to all who do the thankless jobs at FA (don't be bashful, Sandy! ) Raul and all his delegates. You, Uchuca, Karanacs, Dabomb, Dana, and Nikki. Well, perhaps several glasses.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Schedule 7 days ahead?

I find it curious considering that TFA is a burden for some that we give little to no time prior to running. I'd think a one week buffer is beneficial to all. — Dispenser 07:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy has pledged an RFC on leadership in the New Year, clearly that can be one of the community's stated expectations, although I'd prefer to see a very simple RfC so as to avoid the inevitable fate of unfocused RFCs. Given some thoughtful comments on elections by Sandy, I'm slowly starting to put together a draft, but it is far from ready from prime time. I will let people know when it is for purposes of preliminary comment. It will not be in power point. --Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Christie is the editor who historically has made the most effective use of RFCs at WT:FAC, plenty of discussion first so the right questions can be framed at the right time, rather than launching RFCs that don't come to any conclusion because the timing was off or the issues hadn't been fleshed out adequately beforehand. Suggest pinging him in early on in your development phase, and considering school breaks (not sure when most schools return after holidays). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll ping him in, I was thinking mid January, perhaps around the 20th, which will allow time for students to get back and get back up to speed. I'd be grateful for any help, I've never done anything like this before. I was thinking of trying to make it very simple, which of course will not stay that way long, but at least you do your best!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, my re-scheduled ski trip (canceled due to no snow in the Sierra Nevada) is now on for January 13 to 22. Mike Christie can probably give you all the help you need, if he's not too busy, but if you want any feedback from me during that time period, better get me before Jan 13. Mike is really effective at RFCs-- I think that's mostly because he doesn't launch "votes" until the issues have been thoroughly discussed so the "vote" is on the right thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

After you get back then, we'll do it. I do not want anything distracting you from your enjoyment.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine anything about <whatever> that will distract me at all :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing the weights

The currently existing weights implement the value that anniversary and connection to date are as important as importance. This is a value that is analytically false. (Un untrue value !?) Of course importance is most important! The TFA has a HUGE impact. It is also very important as an incentive to writers. We should use this to show important content and to entice writers to write about important content. An easy way to improve these aspects is to double the weights for importance. What is the decision process for doing this? --Ettrig (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually we have a discussion here following a concrete proposal (i.e., with proposed changes to the rules). Raul as Featured Article Director makes the final decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On a sidenote that you might not be aware of, actually TFA does not have a huge impact on FA writing, since experienced FA writers know that mainpage day is an enormous pain in the arse. But that's an unnecessary distraction from whether we should increase the points for "vital" articles (which may or may not have anything to do with importance). It is additionally wrong to assume TFA doesn't try for "importance", since it historically had the 12-yo subject matter importance, which went missing along the way precisely because of arguments over what was important subject matter to a 12-yo. Raul had amply accounted for the issue of "importance", and I suggest that a thorough debate and understanding of the history of this matter would require understanding why the 12-yo school subject matter thingie got dropped. I doubt that Raul had anything to do with the decision to drop a provision he had wisely included at TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just found the diff where we lost "basic subject matter". I seem to recall that fell out of a long discussion, and Raul did implement it. Maybe someone can find that discussion, but we did have the "basic subject matter" as a means of representing importance, and we lost it precisely because Editors Argued Over It Incessantly, so any measure of "importance" we try to reinstate might need to avoid same. Assuredly, many editors do not agree on what is "important", so this will have to be carefully crafted. At any rate, let's end the notion that Raul/TFA didn't try, because he/it/they sure did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with all of the above responses) A "vital article" already gets four points, which is more than any anniversary other than one that is divisible by 50. Category:All Wikipedia FA-Class vital articles contains 39 articles. Only three have not yet appeared on the main page, as far as I can tell from their talk pages: Columbia River, Elvis Presley and Saturn. A "core topic" article is worth six points, as much as an anniversary divisible by 100. Category:FA-Class core topic articles contains 18 articles, all of which have appeared on the main page. So I disagree with your starting point, since I don't think that the current points system prevents "important" articles from appearing on the main page. If more "vital" and "core topic" articles are promoted to FA, they will appear on the main page without difficulty without the need for extra points. Also bear in mind that there are editors who positively dislike articles that they have brought to FA-standard appearing on the main page, because of the increased vandalism and poor-quality editing that result, which takes time to deal with. Increasing the TFAR points for "important" articles is therefore unlikely to attract them into these areas. Bencherlite^Talk 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, look at how empty the request page and the /pending page (box at the top of this talk page) are. Any article, important or not, that gets nominated here is likely to be scheduled very soon. Bencherlite^Talk 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance is the word used in the project page. My suggestion is to double those weights. Much of the responses seem to be about something else. Agreed, I don't know how TFA functions as an incentive. Is there any non-anectdotal data on this? Agreed, there seems to be a lack of important FA's. That is an important aspect to try to improve. Back to the drawing board. --Ettrig (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bencherlite has already explained why doubling the weights won't make a difference: they are alrady getting maximum benefit, doubling the points won't change the fact that any "important" FA already gets a slot. The responses speak directly to that: what is your point? The problem you are trying to address is not an FA problem, and not one we haven't contemplated and dealt with many times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "importance" is the word used in the project page but then it is defined with three criteria, two of which are "vital article" and "core topic". Please have the courtesy to read the points system properly before you try to change it. There are 998 "vital articles"; if only 39 are FA-standard, why is this the fault of TFAR, or why would change the points system be likely to make any difference? Bencherlite^Talk 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I already agreed the problem is a lack of important FA's. No need for more incentives follows from that. I am very curious why you still feel a need to retort. --Ettrig (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To satisfy your curiousity, I hadn't in fact picked up that your comment "back to the drawing board" meant that you were no longer pushing for increaed weight for important FAs. Your last post makes that clear, so I think we're done here. Bencherlite^Talk 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with identifying the three VAs. I'll start with them. --Ettrig (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination process

This turned into a discussion about the process. --Ettrig (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied from WP:TFA/R

• Note: this is an old FA, and none of the original editors appear to be active. Has the nominator (or anyone) reviewed the article for mainpage readiness, or notified on article talk that it is proposed here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Several "new" requirements here. Where is the full process described? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettrig (talk • contribs) 15:05, December 2, 2011

Common sense isn't a "requirement" here, nor is answering a common sense question, but the good folks who follow this page (and decide what to put on the mainpage) do need to know if an article is mainpage ready when the regular contributors are long gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What does mainpage ready mean? --Ettrig (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WIAFA (if you don't know, perhaps you should ping article talk in the future before nominating-- it's common sense courtesy, even more so when the original editors have gone missing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

End copy

I did miss that, yes. But why remind after it's done? There is a process for listing articles as FA and another process for delisting those articles when needed. The list defines which articles are FA. Maybe it is good, but it is not common sense that there exists an additional informal FA evaluation process. --Ettrig (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Either Dabomb87 or Raul654 goes through TFA/R and puts articles on TFA. It is mere courtesy and common sense-- helpful to them and to the article in question-- for a nominator of an article they are not familiar with to check the article history and significant contributors to make sure that old articles are still in good shape and being watched. We know, or hopefully can assume, that newer FAs are still in good shape. It is not a requirement to make sure a TFA is mainpage ready, but neither do we want to leave the impression to Raul or Dabomb that they are merely because someone nominated them-- hence, if any editor sees that the original nominator might not have checked, any editor can/should query to make Dabomb87 and Raul654 aware, and to make sure someone will have a look. I know it's a strange process, but we call it collaboration here on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Either you think I'm a newbie, and then you shouldn't use irony against me OR you don't, and then you should expect me to be familiar with Wikipedia cooperation. Shame on you ;-). A complex set of values, assumptions and procedures is unfolding. No, I don't think this is common sense. I think it is a subculture of a clique in Wikipedia. I am not against subcultures in general. But again, they are not common sense. --Ettrig (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored my post to its original-- please don't edit other user's posts. And making assumptions about what is (my at least) standard operating procedure at this and other pages might not be a wise course. I made no such assumptions about you, other than knowing that you were given decidely inaccurate information about TFAR, which (seems to have) originally brought you here. Clarifying to you how things work here is nothing more than that; you are free to imagine cliques, subculture and conspiracies, but that won't stop common sense from operating here to assure that the mainpage continues to represent Wikipedia's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to what you are telling me here about this procedure, not to assumptions. I have agreed that the weights are not a problem, good. I now find others. It was pointed out to me that three vital featured articles that have not been presented on the main page. To me those are glaring omissions. So I check the instructions and nominate the oldest one. You then instruct me that there are several additional things that need to be done for this article to be presented there. To be able to estimate the full volume at work required to reach that goal, I ask for a complete description of the process. That is not given. This could very well have ended by me giving up and Saturn falling back into oblivion (from this process). In my view this would have been the wrong result. It is much better that such a very good article about a level three vital subject is presented, than that a slightly higher quality article about a much less important subject is presented instead. This is my view. The problem may be a difference in values or poor procedures. Claiming that your views are common sense is arrogant and doesn't solve the problem. --Ettrig (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "those are glaring omissions". Different editors may have a different take on it, but when we only have three, it may be desirable to space out their presentation over time. You did nothing wrong in nominating it-- that doesn't mean that on this page we don't need to keep an eye on older FAs before they run. You are free to assume that implies something about a "subculture" or a "clique" or is "arrogant", but it's just the way things work (when they do work). Really :) You've nominated an article that will appear if consensus supports. Since it's an old article, regardless of whether it's "vital" or not, we check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no great problem with adding a comment that nominees may not be selected by Raul or Dabomb if they have degraded significantly; what I look for is unsourced statements.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be more effective to remind "Supporters" that they should glance over nominations before supporting? I've long been concerned that they don't always seem to do that, and felt that they should, at least with the older noms. We always know which ones are older, because they get extra points, so that doesn't seem to be asking too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for more than two years to space out their presentation over time. And then be picky about the quality degradation that has occurred. Missing a vital article that (at least) was FA. That process seems far from optimal to me. Should I accept that this is how things work? Importance is of course subjective. The vital articles lists are (one of) Wikipedias way of identifying important articles. If the TFA process isn't even trying to catch those. Than it is disconnected from the rest of Wikipedia. The value that I am trying to get across is that we should use those resources that are limited primarily for the content that is most important. Inability to do this would have been fatal for earlier encyclopedias. To neglect this in Wikipedia is to go for a non-optimal solution. It seems to go OK this time. But finding these views in a person with so much influence in Wikipedia makes me sad. --Ettrig (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your evidence that "the TFA process isn't even trying to catch those" (see section just above this one, where it was already explained). Perhaps if you could set aside pre-conceived and faulty notions, and participate in helping to make sure the TFA is the best it can be, this discussion could advance productively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "mainpage ready": I think that a quick check for redlinks, dead links and problem templates, and a little cleanup, should be undertaken before putting it in the queue; I remember Doomsday (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had to undergo a quick cleanup because of dead refs and clutter gathering. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Intriguing that Saturn got exactly the same number of hits while on the mainpage (Dec 4) as it gets every Sunday: [1] Don't know if that means people aren't interested, would rather read about something new and interesting, it gets mostly hits from school kids during the week, or what, but we didn't see the typical mainpage jump in page views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That is very strange indeed. I'm inclined to wonder if there is an error.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be the case. Note that December 3 (Saturday) has higher page views than December 4, similar to those in previous days, but there are generally fewer views in the weekends. Ucucha (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed now, it was an error-- that's weird, wonder why they show partial data, and then it's fixed later. Anyway, false alarm, data repaired now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I am happy that Ettrig has constructed this list. Good to prioritise some of these to be mainpaged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Twin requests

I always forget whether I have flagged these things before, but I have at several times thought of twin requests for two FAs which are part of a Featured Topic, which would look on the mainpage like the Obama/McCain twin presentation at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/November_2008. What got me thinking of it is our tons of bird articles, so if you look at the Featured Topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Featured_and_Good_Content, we have Red-billed Chough/Alpine Chough and African Crake/Corn Crake which are natural pairs, none of which have been mainpaged. I was thinking this mainly as it (a) rewards Featured Topic work, (b) is so rare that it will be very infrequent that we have them and hence they are a novelty, and (c) gets a few more FAs on mainpage in a systematic and fair way. Okay, shoot me down in flames now.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ... but the answer hasn't changed since the last two times you asked. Cas !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, consensus can change as they say at...oh never mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dec 7

See Raul's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems obvious enough!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The complaints have started about having two US-military hardware articles back-to-back... Bencherlite^Talk 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Naturally! Of course that means the FA process is failing, right? On a more serious note, remember this when someone suggests moving the nonspecific requests to more than two-- the aircraft was scheduled because of a non-specific request (which are usually honored), when Pearl Harbor was pending. But if they'd failed to schedule the aircraft, someone else would be complaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr Hankey?

Hello. Last time I got involved in TFA I managed to offend everybody. For the record that really wasn't my intention. Therefore I will be brief here and not too upset if everyone objects, however, what do editors think about Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo for TFA sometime soon? Of course it might be a bit extreme for the day itself, but perhaps a nonespecific date somewhere during the christmas season? Coolug (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You did not offend me; I cannot speak for others. Prepare a blurb, put it in the nonspecific spot, and lets see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the OP is serious, I'd recommend not wasting everyone's time with this. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? It is a FA, it has not run, and Raul hasn't put it on his list of articles not to run.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As OP says, I think for Christmas itself it would be a bit off, but for any other day I see no reason not to run it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Date range

This page is not properly acknowledging that the 15th and 16th have been scheduled.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO:/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you find that is still the case? I was looking at the date page on the project page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Object to running Mary Anning on December 16

I am the person who has done the most edits to Mary Anning and I would like to be around to help patrol the article when it runs on the main page. I will not be available to do that around the 16th. Also I was really hoping to try and get this article run on the main page closer to or preferably on her birthday on May 21. I really think that if you are going to nominate articles that you are not involved with editing you should try and notify the principle editors of the article BEFORE it is scheduled to see if they have an objection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Rusty, I'd support delaying it in that case. Dabomb/Raul....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More care with blurbs, please

Beating the same old drum: [2] [3] It would be so nice if folks supporting blurbs would help review and check them and the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot request

I've filed a request for approval for a bot to keep WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page up to date. See WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 5. Ucucha (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Christmas Day

Just a couple of ideas - Flame Robin or Red-capped Robin. Technically neither of them are related to the European Robin which is generally associated with Christmas (at least in the UK, I don't know whther it is in the US), so there'd be no date points, but it's the only articles I can see at the moment with a loose connection (other than the aforementioned Hankey). I don't have time to write a blurb at the moment, but can do so tonight if people think either of these are worth pursuing. Any thoughts?  An optimist on the run! 09:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I've nominated Red-capped Robin.  An optimist on the run! 16:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

High importance FA's that have yet to be featured at TFA

Views (K) Links Product Title

511 82 41902 Brad Pitt

373 106 39538 Elvis Presley

448 84 37632 Angelina Jolie

359 86 30874 Madonna (entertainer)

229 119 27251 Olympic Games

263 95 24985 Richard Nixon

267 86 22962 FC Barcelona

238 76 18088 Liverpool F.C.

272 60 16320 David Bowie

380 38 14440 Guy Fawkes

318 42 13356 The Notorious B.I.G.

365 31 11315 2012 phenomenon

216 40 8640 Jenna Jameson

267 32 8544 CM Punk

169 50 8450 Gwen Stefani

122 54 6588 Manhattan Project

142 41 5822 Tool (band)

75 68 5100 Titan (moon)

133 37 4921 Tourette syndrome

117 42 4914 Roger Waters

121 39 4719 Final Fantasy

184 25 4600 Firefly (TV series)

69 65 4485 General relativity

109 38 4142 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

64 56 3584 Aston Villa F.C.

43 79 3397 Rutherford B. Hayes

64 52 3328 John, King of England

39 80 3120 Chester A. Arthur

84 37 3108 Pixies

70 44 3080 Bart Simpson

155 19 2945 Guy Fawkes Night

41 70 2870 Kuiper belt

89 29 2581 Maggie Gyllenhaal

72 35 2520 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

54 46 2484 Windsor Castle

91 26 2366 Final Fantasy XIII

71 33 2343 Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)

43 53 2279 George II of Great Britain

62 35 2170 The Kinks

35 60 2100 Common Raven

68 30 2040 The Mummy (1999 film)

55 36 1980 Ernest Shackleton

56 34 1904 Audioslave

40 46 1840 Scotland national football team

66 26 1716 Amazing Grace

60 27 1620 Nick Drake

52 29 1508 Messiah (Handel)

19 79 1501 Common Blackbird

32 45 1440 Richard II of England

35 40 1400 Columbia River

29 48 1392 Mauna Kea

32 42 1344 The Simpsons Movie

69 19 1311 Australian Cattle Dog

42 30 1260 Kid A

24 51 1224 Greater Manchester

20 59 1180 Georges Bizet

39 29 1131 In Rainbows

46 24 1104 Omaha Beach

45 24 1080 Halo 3

24 44 1056 Anfield

79 13 1027 Hanged, drawn and quartered

38 27 1026 By the Way

35 29 1015 Bill Russell

32 29 928 Final Fantasy VIII

32 29 928 Final Fantasy VIII

38 24 912 Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

38 24 912 Zodiac (film)

32 28 896 John A. Macdonald

29 30 870 The Final Cut (album)

47 17 799 Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

21 36 756 Battle of Moscow

32 23 736 Kingdom Hearts II

52 14 728 Ico

40 18 720 Connie Talbot

34 21 714 Halo 2

35 20 700 Steve Bruce

25 28 700 Covent Garden

29 24 696 Nancy Cartwright

33 21 693 Resident Evil 2

25 27 675 Age of Mythology

23 28 644 Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

29 22 638 George B. McClellan

49 13 637 Slow loris

25 25 625 Turkey Vulture

26 24 624 Final Fantasy IX

25 24 600 S.H.E

26 23 598 Final Fantasy XI

22 27 594 Planets beyond Neptune

45 13 585 Limbo (video_game)

64 9 576 Donner Party

36 16 576 Animaniacs

19 30 570 Loggerhead sea turtle

46 12 552 Rumours

23 24 552 Star Trek: First Contact

60 9 540 Only Fools and Horses

25 21 525 Mumia Abu-Jamal

40 13 520 Austin Nichols

32 16 512 Carnivàle

39 13 507 Nancy Drew

19 26 494 Stephen Crane

27 18 486 Dreadnought

44 11 484 Master Chief (Halo)

22 22 484 Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

22 21 462 American Airlines Flight 77

23 20 460 School Rumble

35 13 455 Battle of Vimy Ridge

30 15 450 The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

24 18 432 Appaloosa

31 13 403 Under the Bridge

21 19 399 Sideshow Bob

28 14 392 Surrender of Japan

20 19 380 Barton Fink

20 19 380 Halo Wars

21 17 357 Australian Defense Force

22 14 308 Jarome Iginla

22 13 286 Loveless (album)

23 12 276 Supernatural (season 1)

20 13 260 Roberto Luongo

20 12 240 Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

21 11 231 Disintegration (The Cure album)

21 11 231 Sebastian Shaw (actor)

21 11 231 Texas Tech University

22 9 198 Supernatural (season 2)

30 6 180 Superman in film

37 2 74 Myles Standish

20 3 60 Morgan dollar

32 1 32 The Apprentice (UK TV series)

26 0,1 2,6 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettrig (talk • contribs)

Mmmm, very interesting. I suspect that many editors could produce completely different lists of their top 100 FAs which have not featured on the main page. It all depends on what each individual considers to be "high importance". Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just making a guess here but he is probably going by the 'high importance' parameter in WikiProject banners. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A spotcheck of several of these shows that the project importance rating does not figure, it may be mid or low for many of these examples. Perhaps it is to do with the "Product" obtained by multiplying the number of views per month by the number of interwiki links. In any case the list appears to be highly subjective. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that list shows FAs that don't need to be featured on the main page - judging by the page views readers have no problem finding them. Yomangani^talk 10:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that headline. I do agree with it though. Enormous numbers of pageviews show that these articles are of interest. The number of interwikilinks are much fewer, but still, in most cases they are much higher than the number of votes on typical items here. Each such wikilink represents at least one peer wikipedian who thought this was an important subject. In short: The votes are already in. Although the pagevies are already very high, the overlap with main page viewers is most probably rather low, can safely be assumed to be random. --Ettrig (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I link to articles when they're relevant, not when they're ready for TFA... so really, it's not a vote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear signal that this is what they think is important in a Wikipedia. Someone wrote the article on the other side. But I think the pageviews are more important because of the enormous numbers. The lowest figures here correspond to a rate of more than 200,000 per year. Huge crowds have told us what they think is important to them. Who are we to say they should have something else? --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, huge crowds have told us that they can already find what they want without the articles needing exposure on the main page. If the intersection of the main page views and the views of these articles can "safely be assumed to be random" then the people viewing the main page and the viewers of these articles aren't necessarily the same audience and therefore we shouldn't assume the preferences of these viewers are the preferences of the main page viewers. Basically, these figures alone show only that these articles get a lot of views and have a lot of wikilinks. Yomangani^talk 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I (re)wrote it, sorry. The meaning I saw was highly-viewed articles, articles that are of more importance to be featured than Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), but may or may not make it onto WP:VA. Buggie111 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So we should have popular culture articles, predominantly biographies, about topics people are very familiar with, dominating TFA? I much prefer the current system. I'm far more likely to be interested in a TFA about a subject I'm not familiar with. The current system gives us a lovely esoteric mix and encourages editors to edit and readers to broaden horizons. Spiced with a good helping of popular culture. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller. TFAR is for editors who would like to see an article featured on a specific day as opposed to a randomly selected one when it eventually gets to shine on the front page, because it shines more for whatever reason (usually as the result of an anniversary). This usually results in a few requests a month, with the vast majority being picked by Raul or Dabomb from the rest of the available selections. This arbitrary definition of importance isn't really a necessary list for TFAR. If people want to see an article they worked hard on featured on a specific day that has some importance to the subject, then this is the venue to let Raul and Dabomb know. Articles that are fairly generic in regards to date importance can be featured on any day; it makes no difference to the quality of the main page or TFA. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everything has the potential to become featured if enough work is put into it; whether that be Bart Simpson or Saturn, to a species of lemur or a U2 song. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't put too much weight on the links (do they include template ones?), but high views are important. I also see at least one article (Toutette's Syndrome) where the main editor doesn't want it to be TFA. But what should we do with the other 20-odd with over 100K views, given the generally accepted lower rate of such articles passing FAC these days? Feature them all over a short period or hoard them up? Such articles are also more likely to have deteriorated since promotion, through the usual wear & tear of WP. The list (or at least the views part) is interesting, & I hope Raul will take it into account into his selection process for days with nothing fixed by the process here. I don't find much weight in the "well people can find it anyway argument". Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One point that hasn't yet been raised is that, of course, every article is only ever featured on the main page once (the one time that was an exception, with Barack Obama being run for the second time in conjunction with the McCain article on the day of the US federal election, I believe Raul made it clear that it was a one-off event that would not be repeated). If these top 100 articles are featured in, say, the next 200 days*, that means we've run all of our highest-importance articles (by these criteria). Where then are we left? Right back where we are now, but with much fewer high-importance articles to run at later dates.

*Of course I recognize that such a scenario is extremely unlikely. But if hypothetically Raul and Dabomb do draw almost exclusively from this list for every date on which there is no specific feature request, it will become exhausted quite quickly. If we run the highest viewed and linked articles now, we will have none to feature a couple of years from now, meaning that every TFA would be for an article judged to be 'unimportant' by these criteria. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm responsible for two and a half of these listed articles: Amazing Grace and Mulholland Drive (film). As "Amazing Grace" is the second most widely used avenue for proselytizing in Christianity and it gets performed about 10 million times a year, there's just no way that topic needs more attention. And unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion from the bold text at the start to the Rate this page box at the bottom. Donner Party I was tangentially involved in and leave the choice to run it up to the other editors who wrote that one. I would like none of them on the main page. It's not necessary to place them there and unless you've had the honor anxiety ... filler word ... of running an article on the main page of a very highly viewed topic, similar to what To Kill a Mockingbird saw on its main page day, it's an experience that is often not fun; it's the primary reason I will never try to get the Lesbian article to FA. I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. I'm reiterating it here, as a response to this misguided emphasis on highly viewed topics at TFA. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we are opponents over this issue. But first I want to express my deep respect for and gratitude to you for having created 2,5 of these articles that I consider extremely valuable for Wikipedia. (1) I find it difficult to interpret this passage: unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion. Does it mean that the article is difficult to understand? In that case it should not have the FA stamp. (2) I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. In my view something hase gone very wrong here. My most likely interpretation is that you are claiming ato have a say over what happens to a Wikipedia article and this is being honored by a very influential person in the Wikipedia community. This strikes me as contrary to central values in the Wikipedia community. (3) misguided adds nothing to the argument. That word just says that it is obvious that you are right. --Ettrig (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, I guess you haven't seen Mulholland Drive...it's an unusual movie to say the least. I'd counter that Moni is being practical about article erosion while on the mainpage and feeling reluctant at the prospect of dealing with it. Much of it is about courtesy to folks who've put in alot of wrk but also might have very practical reasons why a particular point in time is not good for an article to be on the mainpage. There is a discussion on Mary Anning elsewhere that is pertinent and a good example. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My central aim is that writers should be encouraged to write about important topics. If TFA has a discouraging aspect, then that is of course very important to take into account. --Ettrig (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The people who write FAs are telling you that an article appearing on main page is often a disincentive. Personally, I disagree - I've been delighted when some of my FAs have appeared there, but if our paramount aim is encouraging editors to produce FAs, we need a flexible system. Which we have. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not opponents. This is not a game or battle. It's pretty obvious to me that I'm right, and that confidence comes from my experience working in FAs and other high-quality articles. I think the emphasis on putting high-volume articles on the main page is certainly misguided and I have no idea where the energy behind it comes from. It seems completely illogical to me why editors are focusing on this, and I really don't understand why editors who have never written any kind of FA are pushing for it.

This is the basic issue: high volume articles are very difficult to get to any high quality status because the majority of editors on Wikipedia are completely unfamiliar with the amount of work, research, and editing it takes to get an article there, even for minor articles. So many editors work on high-volume articles that it is counterproductive to attempt to improve them. The true problem here is converting the masses of editors who don't work on high quality articles (not high-volume) so that it becomes a much less combative or problematic atmosphere to work. Pushing for high-volume articles on the main page isn't just putting a cart before a horse, it's harnessing a rhino to a sundial and pushing it in any direction other than the one we should be going toward. Every last editor and volunteer on this site should know how to do the most basic stuff to get an article to FA. There should be at least 20 editors discussing and improving high-volume articles in cooperation, each of them using the best sources, discussing how best to present the information, and collaborating on this collaborative encyclopedia. But that doesn't happen. It's just one or two editors on small articles because that's the reality. And if you think I have too much influence over an article appearing on the main page--you're harnessing another rhino to a sundial. You do realize that because I'm the only editor shaping the articles I've written, that I have enormous influence over what goes into them, right? Whether they go on the main page is so not the issue. I'm the only editor shaping information about the topics I've written about because I'm the only editor willing to do any of the work to improve them. I should not nor do I want to have that responsibility. This is back to the real problem here: this site needs to make it abundantly clear that every last editor should be reading sources and discussing content on a meaningful level, not delegating tasks to an overburdened minority. We're taking the lowest amount of work from volunteers because we don't expect anything better of them. This needs to stop and it's not going to if we don't challenge all editors to increase their standards in what they do here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out three problems with your previous entry in this discussion. This answer repeats some of them and does nothing to clear out those problems. Such behaviour makes discussion impossible. --Ettrig (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You and I are not having the same discussion. I'm addressing real problems on Wikipedia and you are manufacturing solutions to no problem at all. In that light, this does indeed make constructive dialogue difficult. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In a reference work it should be no surprise that some subjects get searched for more frequently than others. But do people go to the mainpage because they hope that today's topic will be the thing that they were about to search for, or do they go there to read an interesting example of some of Wikipedia's best work? I'm rather inclined to think the latter, I wouldn't go so far as to exclude widely read articles from the mainpage, but personally I prefer TFA to be one I would otherwise be unlikely to read. ϢereSpielChequers 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What counts as a vital article?

For something to count as a 'vital article', does it need to be in the original vital article list, or does the expanded list count? Kaldari (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck? Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Charming. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously someone "gives a fuck", as you so charmingly put it, otherwise they wouldn't be asking the question. Please don't take out your frustrations on the rest of us.  An optimist on the run! 06:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just don't want to annoy people by counting the points wrong, but I guess I'll annoy people by asking inane questions instead :P Kaldari (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it an inane question, and I'm sorry I don't have an answer for you but I don't use the request page very often. To be honest though, I don't think point scoring is as important as it used to be a couple of years or so back. From what I've seen, there's rarely 5 articles in the date specific queue, so little risk of requests being "bumped".  An optimist on the run! 07:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since our page plainly links here, and not to the expanded page, I don't understand the question. Are you proposing that we change our requirement for additional points to encompass the expanded page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was simply asking for clarification, since there are 4 levels of vital articles. I take it from your reply that only levels 1-3 are used for the scoring (i.e. not the expanded list). Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests/Archive_10#Vital_articles. That discussion resulted in no consensus to limit what counts as a vital article for TFA points to the top 1000. I would probably take that discussion to imply that the expanded list can be used, but the discussion doesn't really definitively say that the expanded list is the one that is used. I'm also not sure if any more discussion about this has happened since then. Calathan (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The expanded page didn't exist when we first made the rule. I think that including the expanded page as part of the definition of a Vital Article would follow the spirit behind the rule. We should change in the criteria to accommodate. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Long range suggestion

I know it is a bit ahead of schedule - but CS Lewis on the 50th anniversary of his death, as 'the other anniversary' will be all over the place (TV, commemorative newspapers and magazines, rent-a-conspiracy etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats almost two years from now, it first need to be FA. and a month before the actual date you can run it on TFA process.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes might make a timely front page article for January 31, given the recent association of the Guy Fawkes mask with the occupy movement. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

God no, it's an appalling idea. The article already gets enough people trying to add trivial information about the mask and whatnot. Nev1 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be rather against this, for the reason Nev1 provides and also because it would surely be so much more timely on Guy Fawkes Night. (5 November) —Cliftonian (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well different perspectives for different folk, I guess. The hyperbole is a bit much though. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I seemed rude, I did not mean to be. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC to make FA leaders elected, not appointed

An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.

TCO (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the leadership of the featured article process

An RfC on the leadership of the featured article process has been opened here; interested editors are invited to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin Friday for Good Friday (April 6)

An idea I found quite amusing. Just thought I'd put it out there. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA, history, TFA run twice

TFA has only once before run an article twice (Obama had already run, but was repeated on Nov 4 as part of the Obama-McCain TFA, where McCain had not previously been TFA, see discussion here), but a repeat TFA will happen again on January 18 and January 19 because of the SOPA insanity going on in here,[4] so I'm saving the diff of the explanation here for archives, since the question will surely come up in the future. Congratulations Ceoil ... or something :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there likely to be an Obama-Romney (?) TFA this November? Is this sort of matchup going to become a fixture, in the event that Romney or whoever gets to FA status? Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. We don't give this kind of special treatment to any other country's elections. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. I don't personally like this kind of thing, it seems dreadfully Americanocentric to me (as a foreigner). —Cliftonian (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest it does to me as well (also as a foreigner), but then again, this is the English Wikipedia and the elections in the world's largest English-speaking country are of unusual worldwide significance. So I can see arguments both ways... Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it also depends on which articles are of featured standard - if be the next election in Canada/UK/Australia, the articles of both major candidates are FAs, then the case for another twin mainpage could be put. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Having triple mainpages for Canada or the UK (or, depending on the fortunes of the separatist parties, quadruple mainpages) is going to be rather problematic. That is, if you don't want to piss off the liberals and nationalists in either country. :P Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

True, I hadn't thought of that! Let's drop the idea then... Prioryman (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There might be other opportunities Wills and Kate when they become King and Queen..maybe there will be more than one FA on a person or film at Oscar time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

W. E. B. Du Bois

Hi. The article W. E. B. Du Bois was just promoted to FA status. His birthday was February 23rd, 1868. Is it possible to consider the article for the main page a month from now, Feb 23rd, 2012? I'm not too sure about the process for nominating articles for the Main page, so if more information is required, or if another protocol should be followed, let me know. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just place it on the page under Feb. 23. There's no other nom for that day, so you have a good chance that it'll make it. Congratulations on the FA! Ucucha (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I'll do that. --Noleander (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Windsor Castle on February 6

Would Windsor Castle not be a better choice than Frederick Russell Burnham for February 6 due to it being the date of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee? --George2001hi (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Diamond Jubilee is a four day event from 3-6 June 2012 with the official date on 5 June, not on 6 Feb. Jubilees are never held on the actual anniversary of a monarch's accession, because (by definition) that's always also the anniversary of a close relative of the monarch (in this case her father) dying, and the royal family will be at memorial services and in no mood for festivities. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems quite conclusive. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify: for the anniversary of the day of the Queen's ascension to the throne. This surely carries more weight than an article with no relation to the particular day. --George2001hi (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in sight of the lack of featured articles relating to the British monarchy for the official day of the celebration (5 June, as pointed out by the IP), it may be best to hang on to this article until then. --George2001hi (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless any others can be suggested? --George2001hi (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Prince Albert Victor? Preferably with the nonsense about Jack The Ripper removed. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. for 15 March

I'd like to put Liverpool down for 15 March, the date will be 120 years since their formation, which I feel is a relevant anniversary to be marked by be on the main page. NapHit (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea, at the moment nominations are only being taken up to the 11th march, and all five date specific spots are full anyway, but keep your eye on the page and then a spot comes up put a blurb in. I can't see why it wouldn't be selected (unless Raul is a manchester united fan :P ) cya Coolug (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that Malmo FF is already a long-standing nomination for 24 February. Presuming it runs, a Liverpool nomination for 15 March would lose a couple of points. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ye I took that into account, but I should still have around 6 points, so should be ok hopefully. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nyon Conference

I was thinking of entering this in a few months for its 75th anniversary, but that's going to take some remembering, so I wanted to check some details first so as to justify keeping it in my mind for so long. What sort of article would be similar to a diplomatic conference in terms of the points scoring? (That's really the only points thing which seems ambiguous in respect of the article.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider this particular conference "naval history" and thus the "similar" articles in TFAR terms would to me be battleships, naval biographies and so on. You might want to ask Raul for his thoughts. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The details of shipping careers are quite different from the diplomacy behind it – I'd think anything in diplomatic history (people, conferences, etc.) would be similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Another lame, offensive today's featured article

After the Halloween brouhaha, didn't the editors here promise to bring up for wider discussion any potentially offensive main page featured articles for broader discussion? Was today's choice of article brought up anywhere high-traffic (e.g. village pump, talk:main page) before airing? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What is offensive to one person is not necessarily viewed as such by another. I don't see this as a particularly 'offensive' selection. I doubt the people at TFA did either when they selected it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the general insanity on AN & ANI today, it's kinda fitting... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What better way to celebrate Dickens' birthday than with one of his finest works...wait...no, sorry, scrub that. I always get "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" mixed-up with Nicholas Nickleby. Yomangani^talk 12:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you would have liked to have seen a Charles Dickens novel on the main page for his birthday, why not work on an article and get it promoted to FA instead of whining? Nicholas Nickleby looks to me in massive need of editing, too. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

oh, my. Yes, Yoman, get off your lazy duff and write an FA or a dozen, will 'ya?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I only do whining. Yomangani^talk 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Or we could work on an author who's actually mildly interesting; H. P. Lovecraft comes readily to mind. We get the best of both worlds; a great FA about an author and a dash of controversy (he was even more racist than most in his time). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while that it would be a good idea to have a WikiProject Anniversaries that would identify significant anniversaries and collaborate to produce good/featured articles related to them. I've written Sinking of the RMS Titanic as a prospective featured article (currently going through FAC) for precisely this reason. It's a great way of showcasing Wikipedia's relevance. Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a good idea. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Brothers at War is doing that for American Civil War articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, nice of you to find the time to drop in here, but could you please go and provide some evidence on that SPI where you named an editor based on zero evidence? I've been waiting for several hours for you to clear it up. Now, as to the issue here: this is the page for broader discussion, and it is currently mostly ignored by the community. Every time I come over here, it needs to be cleaned up because no one in the community will accept responsibility for what is chosen TFA. I guess I'll clean it up again, but to all of you complaining, this is the page where you can request TFAs, and if you don't like the ones chosen by Raul, then start requesting, and start updating the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Raul doesn't chose filler TFAs that are even remotely offensive to even the most offendable; the one's that always receive a "shame!" are editor nominated and supported by votes at this venue. If you are going to be a TFA watchdog, then participate proactively rather than reactively - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I love that an article I worked very hard on is summarily dismissed in this fashion. By the way, this article and its exposure is motivating my students. We need to have a broader view of the purpose of TFAs. That is all. Carry on. :) Wadewitz (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet :) Cartman and Awadewit's other FAs; and they call 'em pop culture :) :) BTW, you need to get your entries renamed at WBFAN :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Given yesterday's excitement, how about a subpage for editors specifically to list FAs that they believe should never appear on the front page? Debate could take place there and kept well away from Talk:Main Page and the nomination/discussion page. This would at least give Raul and Dabomb some idea of what could generate a backlash, although it would be down to their personal judgement as whether to pay heed. (Note: I was personally in favour of yesterday's front page and this suggestion in no way implies that I believe Raul654 or Dabomb87 to be anything other than great at their job).
P.S. if this is the wrong location for this suggestion then please tell me and I'll move it. I'm afraid that in 5 years I've never paid attention to the FA process. Guess it's time to change that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not the wrong location to place it, but again, Wikipedia is not censored...except for articles about porn stars. Two articles I wrote that have appeared on the main page received complaints from parents because their children had access to the information within them: Harvey Milk and Ann Bannon. Both articles address homosexuality, but neither of them discusses sexual acts in detail. I don't know what a list of articles in which people might object to some material in them would accomplish. Should someone tell me an article I wrote was so objectionable that it does not belong on the main page, the act of objecting on those grounds invalidates their opinion for me. This is an encyclopedia and people come here to be informed. If you don't want to read about stuff, don't come to Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was very amused at the complaints over Fighting in ice hockey when it ran. The truth is, virtually everything will offend someone somewhere. I don't like the idea of creating a blacklist at all. Resolute 01:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to this suggestion. There would end up being so many proposals across a huge spectrum (since someone somewhere is offended at even the most innocuous subject) that we would essentially narrow possible FAs down to practically nothing. My opinion is that an FA is an FA. If it has reached that status, then it should be featured on the front page. An encyclopedia is not here to protect children from adult topics which encyclopedias cover. It is up to their parents to restrict their children's computer privileges or otherwise explain things to them. Silverseren^C 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Only criteria should be the quality of the article, and the points system found on the main page. Wikipedia merely reports, so having a TFA on a controversial topic should not be seen as taking any particular advocacy position. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Two featured articles 9th Feb?

Not sure if I'm asking this in the right place, but were there two featured articles yesterday? I'm sure I saw one early on about a US soldier in Apache/cheyenne wars which I followed some links from, then when I checked back later the featured article was about a hurricane, with no mention of the earlier one anywhere. I guess it's entirely possible my browser's playing up or I'm loosing my mind. Jasonisme (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The TFA was changed by Raul654 at 17:27, February 9, 2012 (UTC) based upon a discussion at Talk:Frederick Russell Burnham#Plagiarism and FAR?. --Allen3 ^talk 13:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that was bugging me and I couldn't work out where to look for the one that was changed Jasonisme (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify instructions?

The guidance:

"There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time for a specific date, and two requests for nonspecific dates."

may be confusing to some readers. Maybe it would be better to pull out the "at any time" to the front, since it applies to both objects (specific and nonspecific). Also some may read it as permitting up to five articles per date. How about the following:

"At any time there may be no more than five requests for specific dates, and two requests for nonspecific dates.

Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a particular difference in clarity, but if you do I also don't see any problem with that edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

When I first read that instruction, I thought it meant there was a limit of 5 per day. I figured out that it was five total after watching the page for a few days. No big deal: if no one else sees it a problem, it can be left alone. --Noleander (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was reading this recently and also found it confusing. It does sound like it could mean 5 requests for any individual day. I had to stare at the page a bit to work it out. But Noleander, your suggestion still isn't quite free from ambiguity... It needs to be really spelled out, something like: "TFA requests are split into two sections: one for non-specific date requests, and one for specific date requests. At any one time, there may be only two requests in the non-specific date section, and only five requests in the specific date section." --Lobo (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I didn't want to be too ambitious: I'm more of a slow-and-incremental kind of editor. But your wording is definitely clearer. --Noleander (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Logos for blurb images?

I note that fair use images aren't allowed in blurbs, but what are the rules for text-only logos? Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

They are often not eligible for copyright because they do not reach the threshold or originality; see Template:PD-textlogo for more information. For help with a specific image I would see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Cheers, meshach (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can non-specific be added to pending list?

I am planning on nominating Birth control movement in the United States for the main page, because it is relevant to ongoing Presidential election issues in the US. There is no specific date involved, so it would be nominated as a nonspecific date article. It has 2 points and so it cannot "bump off" the two current nonspecific date nominees. Question: is there a "pending queue" into which I can place the article? Or do I just check back every few days until I see an empty slot in the nonspecific date table? --Noleander (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A nonspecific slot opened up, and I nominated it. So, no need to respond to this. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This article would be appropriate for any day in March, since March is Women's History Month. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 13th TFA

Thatgamecompany article is slated to be tomorrow's TFA according to the March archive. Was there a mistake? There was a 1-3 vote, it only has one point, and the 13th is the release of a new game, which is clearly promotional. I'm pretty sure that's against WP rules to run a TFA if it's promotional. Also, the candidate for the 14th is another video game article. Would that article not run? Eventhough it has more points and 4-0 vote? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Raul654 (talk · contribs) himself scheduled it, and so must have decided that it should run notwithstanding those concerns. I've reworded it to remove the date of 13th March from the blurb as that's the most promotional bit. The wording could perhaps be improved further. If you're still concerned about the fact that it's running at all, speak to Raul directly; improvements to the wording of the blurb can be suggested at WP:ERRORS. Bencherlite^Talk 19:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Raul may have just not been paying attention when he scheduled it, and may not have noticed that people opposed it running and that there was another video game article with more support requested for the next day. I can't think of any reason why he would have scheduled it despite the objections to it. I definitely think someone should comment on his talk page just in case he doesn't check here. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scheduling is left to the discretion of the FA director (Raul654) and his delegate (Dabomb87), so it's not a mistake. There's no specific rule prohibiting it, just as there's no specific rule prohibiting consecutive video game articles. Post-ec: Bench, that was a good idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice there was a video game request for the 14th that has much stronger support. Hrmm.... I think I'm going to change it. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :D--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Help nominating request

So I would like to nominate the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article to be featured on the main page, but since I have never done this before, I was hoping I could share some of my thoughts and then get your feedback. I was originally going to nominate the article to be on the main page on June 26, 2012 (since that would be the 105 year anniversary of the robbery), but I wasn't sure if that was too far in the future. Also, I am afraid that I may not be by a computer for that date to help deal with any issues that come up with the article so I wasn't sure how to call it off if I couldn't monitor the page or if someone else was willing to monitor the page to deal with any issues while it was on the main page. Let me know your thoughts. I have already drafted a blurb below. Remember (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The 1907 Tiflis bank robbery was an armed robbery of bank stagecoach on 26 June 1907 in the Georgian city of Tiflis (now Georgia's capital, Tbilisi). The robbers attacked the bank stagecoach and surrounding security forces using bombs and guns killing forty people and injuring fifty others, according to official archive documents. The robbers escaped with 341,000 rubles (equivalent to around US $3.4 million in 2008). The robbery was organized by a number of high-level Bolsheviks, including Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Maxim Litvinov, Leonid Krasin, and Alexander Bogdanov, and executed by a gang of Georgian revolutionaries led by Stalin's early associate Kamo. Despite the success of the robbery and the large sum involved, the Bolsheviks were unable to use most of the large bank notes obtained from the robbery because their serial numbers were known to the police. Kamo was caught shortly after the robbery in Germany but successfully avoided a criminal trial by feigning insanity for over three years. He managed to escape from his psychiatric ward, was captured two years later and sentenced to death for his crimes including the 1907 robbery. Kamo later had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, and was released from prison after the 1917 Revolution. None of the other major participants or organizers of the robbery were ever brought to trial. (more...)

Remember, TFAR is currently accepting requests from March 24 to April 23. So if you do wish to nominate for June 26, you can add the article to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending -- this would give you time to plan for whether or not you'll be available that day, and it will also alert others who may also plan for or around that day. If you want to nominate sooner rather than later, you can always try for a nonspecific slot, which means that the article would run whenever Raul chooses it. Depending on the points, it may have a chance of running later this month. María (yllosubmarine) 13:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you ask for a nonspecific slot anytime during the work week? I have less access to the computer during the weekend and I would like to be able to monitor the article while it is on the main page. Remember (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you could make a note in your nomination statement about wanting it to appear on a weekday, as opposed to the weekend. You could always drop a note on Raul's talk page just to make sure it isn't missed. María (yllosubmarine) 13:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin Friday

I'm a little puzzled as to why this English footballer appears in the upcoming dates table under April 6, a date not apparently mentioned in his article, but not July 27th, the 60th anniversary of his birth (he's dead). Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the reason given in this edit, it is because April 6 is Good Friday. Pyrrhus16 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed correct. I thought it was quite a funny idea (seeing as how he was not a particularly saintly fellow), but if I'm in the minority then I apologise. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Puns! I get it... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So zero points really. Keep it for July, I say. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Madonna TFA

Should Madonna (entertainer) be March 27's TFA while undergoing a featured article review? Particularly when major sourcing issues have been raised? Ruby 2010/2013 18:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It was changed to a hurricane article 5 hours ago. Pyrrhus16 18:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that. My apologies. Ruby 2010/2013 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

TFA Suggestion for April 14

Sinking of the RMS Titanic perhaps, notable for being the centennary of that fateful night --Hadseys (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already listed for April 15, the day when it actually sank. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning behind limit of 7 requested articles

I've been watching this page for a little bit to try to learn how the Main Page selection process works. Can somebody explain the reasoning for limiting the requests to 5 articles that are tied to specific days plus 2 articles for unspecified days? Is it that there aren't usually more decent requests then that? Some other reason that I'm missing due to being new to this area? Cloveapple (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of the history at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 11#Where did my nomination go?, including this diff of how the page looked with 140(!) requests. SandyGeorgia's summary of the background to 5+1 (now 5+2) arrangement was "We ended up with the system because all other attempts to help Raul with mainpage scheduling were "gamed", and the page ended up being useless." There may be other explanations elsewhere. Bencherlite^Talk 08:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that pretty much covers it, except for an update: we went from a situation of too many requests to now having too few. The nonspecific date slot is going largely unused now, so until/unless page traffic picks up again, it seems like the 5 + 2 is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be using the two non-specific date slots, which is rather annoying since they're by far the most useful ones to me. Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that's because most editors are actually after a specific date? If that's the case, it would be good to hear-- to try to understand why Raul's attempt to give more input to the community via non-specific dates isn't being used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some usedrs may feel that with the point system, they are more likely to get an article on the main page if it has some sort of date connection... not to mention the pride of getting your topic on the front page on some notable anniversary of the topic. A suggestion? Create a little icon (a.la the FA star) editors can stick on their userpage when they nominate and pass a TFA. I think that this would encourage a wider participation than "I'VE got an FA, so now I gotta get it to TFA". However, you also open the door to issues such as the editor that did get a topic to FA wanting to wait until a specific anniversary arrives. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, please not another reward for doing something anyone can do already. Since the nonspecific slots are going begging, points are not the issue there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it shouldn't be necessary... But unfortunately few people are willing to put out effort without immediate gratification. As much as they are annoying, it would be a very very small price to pay to influence editors towards here; icons are cheap.

I think another problem is that a lot of these processes have to be found. There isn't a really obvious place (I don't believe it's in the various introductions/rules) that a new editor could go to see all the steps to moving articles up the chain (although maybe I'm just not aware of it). Just my thoughts anyways, I haven't spent too much time here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps simply sticking a line in the summary of how points work about the average points value of selected articles would let people know that the extra point for date relevance isn't always necessary, and might encourage additional use of the non-specific slots. GRAPPLE X 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[ec with Raul below] NB {{User TFA}} exists already, if people want something on their userpage about TFAing something (I have two). I don't think that having a ready-made template to give me a TFA icon instead of a userbox would have made any difference about my two TFA noms or would make me more likely to nominate my only remaining FA for TFA. I suspect that there are various editors of FAs for whom no temptation would be sufficient in order to make them want to stick up their pride and joy on the main page for 24 hours to be trampled all over. (Fortunately my two TFAs were complete snooze-fests so were relatively trouble-free, but not everyone is so lucky.) If people don't get gratification from having their article on the main page, then giving them an icon won't help either. I also suspect that many FA writers already know that there is a process for nominating articles to appear on the main page (and it isn't too difficult to find from any FA-related page) but perhaps they are like the insects that group together in large colonies: huddling together they are less likely to be the one picked out by the bird that loves to eat them, but drawing attention to yourself only increases the risk of selection. Bencherlite^Talk 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some usedrs may feel that with the point system, they are more likely to get an article on the main page if it has some sort of date connection - on the contrary, since almost nobody is nominating non-specific date articles, they are very *unlikely* to have their nomination bumped. Or, to put it slightly differently, it's pretty hard to lose a one-person race. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Though not impossible.... Bencherlite^Talk 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The non-specific date slot is an interesting conundrum to me. There are 11 articles which I have helped bring to FA - 10 as primary contributor. Of those 10, five have already run as TFA. One of the remainder I am holding for a centennial anniversary in July. So for my part, I have only four left to run, and I tend not to make general nominations because after five TFAs, I always felt it better to let others have their day if I'm not targeting something specific. Resolute 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to get more feedback like this, re why editors don't use the page. They are holding out for a specific date, they don't want the mainpage scrutiny of potential copyvio (no one will admit that :), they don't want mainpage exposure at all because it brings in kooks, they think this page is too confusing, whatever. Fact is, page isn't being used when Raul tried to give the community more say in putting forward TFAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Poll: Why is no one making non-date specific nominations?

Per above, I'd like people to post below the reasons why they personally aren't doing it. Raul654 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of this page before.

1. I had heard of the page but the emphasis on the the complicated points formula always made me assume that basically the only way to get things scheduled was through anniversaries. I think we should do a better job of encouraging non-date-specific requests, because date-specific things are currently unduly favored. (There are no anniveraries for most biology/anthropology/etc/etc/etc articles.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm saving the FAs I wrote for a particular date

1. Granted I've only written one so far but I do have a date in mind for it. I doubt future efforts from myself will be kept for specific dates though. GRAPPLE X 20:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Two of my four FAs so far have already run: the first ran without being nominated, whilst the second (Mathew Charles Lamb) was successfully nominated early last month in a non-date specific slot. The other two both qualify for relatively few points and are rather trivial soccer biographies, so I am saving them for a specific date. I am intending to nominate one of them, Robin Friday, for Good Friday (a quick skim through his biography will explain the joke). —Cliftonian (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Last time I checked around here was quite a while ago, and low-scoring articles were getting bumped regularly. Since all of my FAs are low-scoring, I was waiting around until a date connection came up and no other video game articles had ran recently. Since it's slowed down a lot, I may make more use of the non-specific date slots in the future. --PresN 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   PresN, pls revisit-- the question is about the non-date specific nominations, which don't need or get date points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   Point still stands- 9-12 months ago, nominating a 0-point article for the non-date spot was a good way to get your article bumped within days, as far as I could tell. A 1-pointer in the specific date spot was a better way to go, if still easily replaced. I did not realize until now that the non-date spots were going empty. --PresN 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

4. As PresN says, low-scoring date-connected articles have always been easily bumped in the past. So something like Huia, which I contributed to helping when it went through FAC, would be nice to have on Feb 6 because there aren't any other NZ-related FAs that haven't run as TFA, but to get it to run there used to be tricky because the connection is tenuous by the former level of competition that PresN mentions. Iridia (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. This option is often my intent, but the article gets posted on the Main Page well before that date comes close. An option to prevent a un-nominated MP appearance would help here. --mav (reviews needed) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
6. As the author of several FAs, many of which have been TFA, I think PresN has a point. There is some carryover mentality about how low-scoring articles were practically guaranteed to get bumped in the past. Some of us still haven't moved past this mentality, even though it is no longer valid, and tend to save our nominations for specific dates. Plus, there is always the chance that date relevance will lead to more page views. I was really excited to be able to run Governor of Kentucky on the day of the gubernatorial election last year (because I'm a dork), although I'm not sure it did all that much for the pageview count versus any old day. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
7. All of my FAs are ships which have a variety of significant dates to hang a TFA on. And with major anniversaries for the American Civil War and World War I upcoming I really don't need to do non-date specific noms. In fact many of my articles are clustered a bit too tightly together and I could have problems spreading them out. I could nom articles in May, June and October with significant anniversaries, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Being on the main page makes the article the target of vandalism

1. I'm kook-averse, and can really do without the increased level of vandalism a main page appearance attracts. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   This is a very good point. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2. While I won't say I'd never nominate an article for TFA, it'd have to be for some really really really good reason - like a multiple-100th year anniversary ... otherwise, I'd rather avoid TFA as much as possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   Hi Ealdgyth -- for the avoidance of doubt, as my lawyer would say, did you have a particular reason for avoiding TFA aside from needing the spur of that once-in-a-lifetime anniversary? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   I've had 18 of "my" articles on the front page ... the best I can hope for then is benign neglect. Sometimes it's much much much worse. I don't need the stress of dealing with an article on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

3. I don't avoid TFA, but if it helps I'll weigh in with what would turn me off it, and that's mainly having the article become a vandal/kook-magnet. I think I've had about 10 main-page appearances, half that I nominated because of a particular anniversary (I think all before there were two non-specific date slots) and half that just came up with the rations. I'm not sure why "my" articles gain selection to fill empty slots but I've always assumed it's because they're a known quantity, content/quality-wise, and perhaps because they're on personalities who aren't well-known to the general public, and hence are at lower risk of subject-related vandalism -- which I guess brings me back to why I'm prepared to nominate occasionally... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Per Malleus and Ealdgyth only less so. Numerically I mean, (rather then numerologically), in terms of TFAs. Yes indeed the vandalism to useful ratio of edits is high - and perhaps getting more so? When it all gets too much sometimes I do crosswords you know - at least no-one comes in and rubs out the correct answers while you are not looking. Give me a shout if they (the TFAs) get automatic protection. Must dash. Ben MacDui 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never felt like doing so.

1. I've never nominated Tourette syndrome, first because I was worried about coprolalia-related vandalism, but lately because I'm still trying to update to newer sources (although little of substance has changed). Once I get sources updated, I would rather nom it during some significant TS-related event. I've never nominated any other TFA because I feel significant contributors should nominate when they feel most prepared to deal with TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Conversely, I've felt like a bit of a dick nominating mine unless there was an overwhelmingly good season or time-specific idea I had....which is why I mostly nom other folks' Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Never bothered, although maybe now I will in the future. ResMar 03:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
4. I have had four main page appearances, but have never nominated. I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that the date non-specific category was for technical articles that not associated with a date. I have an article listed as a potential candidate for 11 April, but an nervous about nominating now that I cannot lock the page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   Now you know how the rest of us feel. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Other (please specify)

1. I've been interested in nominating articles that looked interesting to me, but I feel that the nomination of articles by people who didn't work on them is discouraged. In the past, some people who work on FAs have told me that they don't like the articles they worked on to be on the main page, due to the amount of vandalism some articles receive. I've not nominated any articles in the non-specific date slots because I want to avoid animosity form people who worked on them (I did nominate one article for a specific date where the article's primary author had left Wikipedia). Personally, I feel that all Wikipedia editors should be encouraged to nominate articles to be on the main page, whether they worked on them or not (obviously, people who edited the articles could object to an article running if they think there are good reasons for the article not to run). However, if nominating of articles by non-authors isn't encouraged, I won't be nominating any of them. Calathan (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   My experience has been that all but the most subtle vandalism usually gets reverted quickly by members of the community, even when I'm not around to "baby-sit" a TFA that I worked on. If someone else wants to nominate one of my articles, all they'd have to do is ask! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   I do not agree with how the section my comment was in was changed, so I have moved it here. I am not at all concerned with vandalism of articles when they are on the main page, as I think Wikipedia editors generally do a good job of quickly reverting any vandalism to TFAs. Instead, I am concerned about other editors being angry at me for proposing articles they worked on be put on the main page. While the reason I think those editors might be angry at me is because they are worried about vandalism, I think those worries are unfounded. Calathan (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

2. A combination of reasons:
   • Generally, I think the current system does not encourage people to do so. Perhaps if we had a specific page for non-date specific requests, people would realize they could nominate without a date.
   • The sense that we should defer to the original nominator, as noted above.
   • The fact that this doesn't look like too much of a problem, since we rarely seem to be short for noms. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. It doesn't occur to me to suggest them for non-specific dates. Also, I tend to think you do a decent job of the scheduling, with us chipping in to suggest date-prompted articles. Also, the well-intentioned methodology on this page is way too bureaucratic, IMHO, which is off-putting. --Dweller (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. I have ideas for things to bring to the main page, but I don't have any confidence in my ability to write a good blurb. In case no one has noticed, I'm not what you would call "concise", and blurb writing is very much an exercise in 'pack the most information into the least amount of space'. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
   • Perhaps certain users could make themselves available to help with this on request? —Cliftonian (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
     • Was thinking along similar lines... On request, and if people have a go at a first cut for me to prune, happy to be one such person. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
       • I'd be happy to volunteer for this too. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
         • Anyone volunteering to write blurbs would be well advised to watchlist WP:ERRORS and see the kinds of things from the mainpage that are picked apart there ...that will help you know what kinds of things to watch out for ... fair warning ... It's the most thankless job on Wikpedia. Even more than FAC delegate :/ What I'm seeing here is that TFAR needs better advertising about non-specific date requests. That goes along with FAC needs its own newsletter. That goes along with ... oh, all that stuff I wanted to talk about two months ago :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
   • Related to this and to the near lack of a TFA we had a couple months ago when the delegates were all unavailable at the same time, It might be valuable, if some editors are so inclined, to poke around some of the eligible FAs and start building a mini project around preparing them for a TFA date. Namely, identifying whether there is a closely related date for the article, asking the primary contributors for feedback on running, verifying that the article (especially if older) is free of obvious deficiencies, and writing TFA blurbs. Hell, if you had only two volunteers doing one article per week, you could keep such a system working while relieving pressure on Raul and allowing people like Tony1 the chance to copyedit a blurb before an article runs. Resolute 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
   • I don't know any articles I've worked on other than Hoover Dam which have reached FA status. - Denimadept (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I don't really see it as a problem. The current mix of front page articles has been diverse and interesting. Everybody associated with the FA process is doing an excellent job already, so I don't see that posting nomination suggestions would necessarily improve matters. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
6. I haven't yet nominated anything. However my first look at the nominations page gave me the impression that since there were fewer slots for non-specific dates they must be less wanted. Perhaps upping the non-specific date slots to 5 would send the signal that both kinds of nominations are equally desired? Cloveapple (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Other opinion

• It would be a better result if Raul (and Dabomb87) took a greater role in shaping the sequence of TFAs themselves. If no request is made, or it's not a good one, I'm fine with a bit of executive decision-making. What underlies my feeling is that lobbying by FA writers doesn't necessarily deliver the best for the main page (I'm not referring to anniversaries, etc, which are fine by the current system, I think). A significant problem occurs when a TFA has no picture. I've had complaints from senior wikimedians about this ("dull, unsuitable, to have a slab of text alone on the main page"). If I were running it, the availability of a suitable pic would play strongly in my decision—although I'd still be a little flexible.

  Another thing bugging me is the lack of an effective coordinated strategy to update and buff up each TFA before the day. Tony (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to guess at the balance of two primary causes:

• One would work against overall use of this page. With only taking 7 at a time for a 30 day window, and most staying here until the date is close, it looks like only a fraction of TFA's come from the Wikipedia process and the majority come from a one-man show by some unknown process. So this page lacks some creditability, a sort of "talk to the hand" situation that, after they jump through all of the hoops, only accesses less than half of the monthly slots.
• Second is that I'm guessing that a common impetus to come to this page (despite other issues) is date driven. I.E. "It would be cool to get our article up on this special date" provides extra impetus to go through this process. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you calculate that - a good deal more than 7 per month come via here. Look at [[5]], which was only listed here for a day or less before being scheduled. Articles that get bumped off still have a good chance of running if there is nothing better than them for that day. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say just seven. I don't know the fraction but based on the parameters, I'm guessing less than half. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can believe about half, which is a glass half-full imo. If it were much more we would probably have difficulty maintaining balance among subject areas, countries etc. A look at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page illustrates the problem - this page should maybe be more prominently linked to btw. This coming month may be a bit untypical, with a cluster of strong candidates in mid & late April & little in the first 10 days, apart from April 1 of course. Time for some non-date-specific noms. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that and agree that something else is needed. But what is the system for picking the other half? North8000 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's up to Raoul & Dabomb, but one can see we get a minimum of 1 animal & 1 plant/fungus per month (these are rarely date relevant of course), & the same for other categories with plenty of candidates. But others are not replacing themselves & may be being doled out more slowly. The "art & architecture" group are down to about 5 buildings and one could forsee them running out entirely in the future, as with other groups. New non-architecture promotions in this area get to mainpage very quickly. TV, storms, transport, ships & songs/albums etc have to wait a while, often a long while. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe there IS a good system for the other half. Like "two people select them so as to achieve a nice mixture of topics". But the system is an unspoken secret. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate page format proposal

Reading the comments above plus some of the recent commentary at Talk:Main Page and User talk:Jimbo Wales has got me thinking about an alternate way to format the TFA page that would both hopefully generate more requests and give the community more of an opportunity to comment on main page selections and blurbs before they hit the Main Page. I threw together a rough draft of what it would look like here (rough because I couldn't figure out how all the TFA templates worked; ideally the "TFA not selected yet" message would appear instead of a redlink). The main TFA blurb pages would be protected, and would only be edited by Raul or Dabomb when the article is selected. Before they are completed, the "TFA not selected yet" message would appear. Nominations and discussions on the dates' TFA selection would take place on the transcluded talk pages, which would also provide a record of the discussion for each date. The TFA delegates would commit to selecting TFAs one week out so give the community sufficient time to comment on the selection before it hit the main page. Suggestions could be made for the earlier fourteen days, using the same point system we use now. A bot would advance the page each day by removing the FA on the main page and adding the next day 21 days out. Reducing the nomination window to 21 days reduces the risk of the page growing out of control as it did before.

This new format does do away with the non-specific date selections, but with fourteen open days there should be plenty of room for articles with few or no points to sit. If there is no explicit date connection, Raul or Dabomb can always select them for a different date.

Let me know what you think. –Grondemar 01:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I dislike it. It's just to large, and removing the non-specific date field seems like a poor idea to me. That being said, I'm not a regular here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Points query

Does someone who pays more attention to this page want to have a guess as to how many points Biddenden Maids would get for 9 April? This was written with Easter Monday in mind, and to my mind shouldn't run on any other date as it has such relevance to EM. It gets 1 point for age and 1 point for date, both relatively straightforward—however, diversity and representation are a different kettle of fish. It's about as unclassifiable as an article can get, and depending on how one looks at it, it fits equally well into Culture, Food, Medicine, History or Mythology. Thus, it can legitimately be said to have a point total of anything from -1 to +5. This in turn would affect whether it bumps one of the existing entries. (Although it would push Vimy Ridge out of the 9 April slot if it ran, I don't see that as a problem, since VR is equally appropriate on the 12th.) Any thoughts? – iridescent 2 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd classify this primarily Legend/Mythology and secondly as Women's history. There may be some historical basis, but it is so long ago and the sources are poor so we will never know. So check the archives if a legend/mythology article has ran in the last 6 months. I think it might get 4 points total. Vimy likely has 5 points, so Vimy Ridge would win out. I'd recommend trying to have it run as a non-specific date TFA. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd vehemently oppose it running any day except Easter or Easter Monday (Vimy Ridge wasn't nominated for 9 April, it's only in the 9 April slot because someone unilaterally changed the date against the nominator's wishes). TFA is utterly thankless, especially for a vandal-magnet article like this; on Easter it has enough cultural significance to justify the hassle of running it, but there's no point it running on any other date. – iridescent 2 10:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Widely Covered checking

How do I check if an article is Widely Covered other than manually checking various language Wikipedias? I ask because I think it is likely Battle of Vimy Ridge is Widely Covered and that is currently a suggestion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You count the interwikis (either looking at the bottom of the sidebar on the left-hand side of the article or looking at the links themselves at the bottom of the page in edit mode). "Widely covered" means 20 interwikis, and Vimy Ridge has 13, so it won't get an extra couple of points - unless, of course, you have time and the language skills to write seven stubs quickly! Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how effective the bots that do these are when the title is not exactly the same - as it is for a biography. Here it won't be. You might check a couple of other languages to see they have the same list. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I've checked all 13 and none of them have interwikis to other "missing" articles. The German Wikipedia has de:Schlacht von Arras (1917) but that is about Battle of Arras (1917) (of which Vimy Ridge was one part), so the list is probably complete. Bencherlite^Talk 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fools suggestions

I guess it's that time of year again when I begin soliciting suggested blurbs for April Fools. So, write up your suggestions and post them here I can judge them. The goal is to fool people into dismissing the article as an obvious hoax when in fact it is completely true. Bonus points for funny or weird subject matter. Raul654 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about pigeon photography? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I'd say that's the top of my list (It's very, very much in line with what I'm looking for) :) Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been going on here for a long time now. Basically everyone that has commented there feels pigeon photography is one of if not the best choice. Only other suggestions that are already FAs are Olivia Shakespear and Typhoon Gay (1992).--Found5dollar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon Photography looks very good: is there a proposal for what the actual extract will be. I would prefer as little change as possible. Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A blurb which skirts around the actual application of pigeon photography might be best, leaving a reader to wonder "and just what are these pigeons taking pictures of?" without needing too much re-writing. I'm all in favour of misdirection, but that which uses as little actual change as possible is always the most effective. GRAPPLE X 20:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pigeon Photography. Would very much prefer not to see Olivia Shakespear run on April Fools Day. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why Olivia might even have been suggested as an April 1 candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pigeon Photography My third year in nominating it--T1980 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon photography was a military aerial photography technique invented in 1907 by the German apothecary Julius Neubronner, who also trained pigeons to deliver medications. A homing pigeon was fitted with an aluminium breast harness to which a lightweight miniature camera could be attached for operation during flight. The pigeon photographers' indifference to explosions made them ideal for military applications, and they served with distinction during the First World War, both as photographers and messengers. The reckless over-deployment of pigeon volunteers at Verdun and the Somme induced severe posttraumatic stress disorder among Neubronner's charges, which forced him to abandon his experiments. The French and German militaries both attempted to persuade the photographers to return to the field during the Second World War, but failed to do so. Pigeons in the United States were later drafted for espionage photography duty by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The technique was adapted for civilian use by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which soon expanded its photographer ranks far beyond pigeons. Animals such as falcons, cats and dogs were accepted as BBC photographers as late as 2004. (more…)

Too silly? —Cliftonian (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think we can really justify the designation as volunteers, nor do I see what would amount to avian stress disorder. The dog and cat camera pieces have nothing to do with the BBC. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The references to "volunteers" and "stress disorder" were just supposed to be a joke, but okay then. I take your point about the cats and the dogs, that was just me trying to streamline, assuming for April Fool's Day it didn't really matter. More Fool me! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon photography looks perfect but please keep jokes and misleading text out of the write-up; the very concept sounds bizarre enough. --mav (reviews needed) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The whole idea is to have a completely serious caption. --Tone 08:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That blurb needs some work I think, but it's probably basically on the right lines. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If people feel a need to make the blurb funnier, let's at least do it in style and stay with the truth. Maybe something like the following? (Some of the information is taken from the Julius Neubronner article.)

Pigeon photography was an aerial photography technique originally invented in 1907 by Julius Neubronner, German film amateur and court apothecary of Empress Frederick. Neubronner, who had been using pigeons for medicine delivery and film special effects, came up with the idea after one of them absented iself for four unexplained weeks. Notable later refinements of the method include the use of clockworks by a Swiss clockmaker, batteries by the Central Intelligence Agency, and falcons by the British Broadcasting Corporation. After experimental deployment of the method in the Battle of the Somme, it was used again in a military context by the Germans in the Second World War and later by the United States. Neubronner's house in Kronberg near Frankfurt, the Streitkirche, was originally built by the protestant citizens as a catholic church, so there was plenty of space for the inventor's family, pharmacy, and experiments. Neubronner's paper tape factory is still in business, his films have recently been restored and published on YouTube, and his house still holds the pharmacy (as well as a museum). But the art of pigeon photography today is relegated to enthusiasts such as the prince in a recent film version of Sleeping Beauty. (more…)

This may be a bit too extreme. I guess halfway between this and the original lead is ideal, but I wanted to present all the material that we can work with. Hans Adler 12:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it reads too much like a biography of Neubronner... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's a problem. Maybe it's best to just use the existing lead, and maybe just work a little bit too hard obviously trying to make it sound plausible... Hans Adler 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a more-or-less verbatim write-up from the article itself. Others are welcome to change it, but I'll revert if the changes are too silly or over-the-top. Remember, the key here is to be completely true, but with the goal that someone reading it on April 1 won't be able to tell if it's a hoax or not. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I dove in her. Revert, as inapplicable! —MistyMorn (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert. When you rewrite a text for style, make sure that you keep the meaning or only change it when you know what you are doing. Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in the sources to support the claim that the technique "stalled" (whatever that means) in the First World War, as opposed to the military losing interest afterwards. But there were also several other inaccuracies, so that I felt it better to revert wholesale than to fix everything individually. Hans Adler 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hans: Point taken. With the benefit of hindsight, I probably should have started my preliminary work in a sandbox before introducing suggestions step by step.

What I've done for the moment is:

1) to save (here) the version I was working on, which I realize had become over-egged and overlong;

2) submit (here) to you, and any other interested parties, a few changes which I feel may be good.

(Fyi, I realized that the WWI sentence needed attention and was working on it; "stalled was used in the sense of come to a standstill.) —MistyMorn (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier grumpiness. I have now gone over the World War I information in the lead once more. Hans Adler 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I'd let myself get carried away with the fun. As an outsider, so to speak, I think inclusion of material on WWI is good for the lede as a whole. For April Fools Day only, I quite liked the idea of working in lipstick-sized cameras towards the end. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove Tiananmen Square self immolation page

I edit and watch in the Falun Gong space of articles. I strongly suggest that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page be removed from the main page. It is currently subject to intensive, controversial editing and to some degree edit warring. The tenor of the page has changed dramatically in the last 48-72 hours, with upwards of 60 edits that quickly changed important parts of the article. I am about to submit a note for its Featured Article status to be reconsidered, with a view to rescinding that status, because of this. The page is not stable and currently suffers neutrality issues.

Background to this note:

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; editor user:Ohconfucius was the lead editor at the time. He put tremendous effort into seeing the page reach FA status. The page was revisited in 2011 by a group of editors who discussed major changes quite exhaustively (lead by several editors who are more sympathetic to Falun Gong). At that time, editor user:SilkTork wrote that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done."--a lot of the changes that occurred were discussed extensively. Consensus was reached. That was early 2011.

Ohconfucius re-appeared a couple of days ago and made a flurry of changes, apparently in an attempt to return the page, in whole or part, to how it was in 2009, when he edited it. He ignored the interim discussion. The changes made in 2011 identified and resolved misrepresentation, omissions, original syntheses, and failure to cogently present the views of Falun Gong or third parties in a manner commensurate with their notability, etc. Ohconfucius preceded to edit, apparently bringing the page back to how it was in 2009, without discussion or any attempt to form consensus. An example: the 2009 version did not say that the use of torture on Falun Gong practitioners increased in the wake of the immolation; that was added to the page in the 2011 version; Ohconfucius deleted that piece of information when he started editing the page again. Ohconfucius has made around 60+ edits, judging by the history. Most of those edits, many of them controversial, were not discussed. He was asked on his talk page and on the immolation talk page, and for the most part failed to do so while continuing to make make changes that changed the tenor of the article. His peers have expressed exasperation at this behavior.

This is obviously a sensitive topic. The incident led to people being tortured and killed. It thus deserves to be treated with circumspection and caution. That caution has not been forthcoming, and I think it would be valuable if an administrator would intercede and monitor the discussion, because attempts for other editors to discuss it with Ohconfucius have not been effective. There is a behavioral problem when an editor makes that many changes unilaterally while ignoring the discussions, particularly when it's a featured article under ArbCom sanctions. He has been politely and repeatedly asked not to make substantial changes, including those that misrepresent sources--which he's done more than once--or change the balance of the page without discussing, but has not done so. It is difficult to know what to do, except find some time to breathe.

Thus, I am strongly urging that the page be removed from the front page as a featured article. I am also entering a request for the page's feature status to be reconsidered. And I am initiating a mediation request so that an uninvolved editor can step in between Ohconfucius, the page, and other editors, to make sure that proper process is being followed on this important and contentious topic.

Further notes: I have made a decision not to edit the page amidst the current strong dispute. Ohconfucius has an open opposition and animus toward Falun Gong. I have said to Ohconfucius that it is my opinion that he is too close and invested in the topic, and should stick to the voluntary self-ban he initiated some time ago. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

May 17th is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. I think an article fitting that theme would be nice. I have found the article The Well of Loneliness, which is a lesbian themed novel that was subject to censorship and trial. I think it would have 3 points total. Can anyone think of an article that might be a better choice or have more points? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is perhaps the best choice. Other options would be biography articles on an LGBT person. David Bowie, Angelina Jolie, Russell T Davies, Nicolo Giraud and Don Dunstan (who also helped decriminalise homosexuality in South Australia) are the available LGBT biographies. Pyrrhus16 07:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to check to see if there was a better article that I had missed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

General Relativity on April 18th

I was about to nominate General relativity as a non-specific date, but then I noticed that the anniversary of Einstein's death is coming up on April 18th. Do you think I should wait and nominate it for the 18th or does it not really matter? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We had Introduction to general relativity as TFA on April 18, 2010 (the 55th anniversary of Einstein's death), so it is likely too soon to feature the General relativity article. Pyrrhus16 12:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule preventing it? It has been two years, so I think that is enough of a gap between the articles. I would like some Einstein themed article to run, and the GR article makes the most sense. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The 18th sounds good to me. 2 years is easily long enough of a gap! Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

These are just a few suggestions I've thought up.

1. The Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page article needs to be more prominently listed. It should be accessible from all the FA related pages. 2. The list perhaps could be re-organized as a table or series of tables. It would include extra information that might make easier to use in selecting articles. This can include:

• Age
• Broad category and specific category (eg. "Physics" and "Physics biography")
• Whether it's a vital topic, underrepresented, or a core topic
• Dates that might be of interest if relevant (death, birth, discovery, etc)
• Current total points of the article. This would have to be maintained by a bot, and would be more complex than the others and is not essential.

3. Increase the request slots. Non-date specific should be increased to three, and date specific should be increased to 7. The reason is that an article can be nominated a long time before it is set to run, and it can sit and eat up space on the request board for almost a month. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only two people who make the decision on which articles to run, and I'm sure both of them are well aware of where to find Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. The last thing this process needs is more request slots; the whole point is to limit the number of nominations to a manageable amount and avoid the mess that this page used to be. This is what TFAR used to look like, and nobody in their right mind wants to go back to it. In any event, I'd imagine virtually all FA writers are aware of this page—which is only two clicks away from the Main Page—and even if not, would know that Raul is the person to ask. The last thing anyone wants is to encourage more driveby nominations, which tend to generate nothing but antagonism; if an article's writers haven't nominated it for TFA there's generally an excellent reason. "Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page" isn't a synonym for "Featured articles that ought to be on the Main Page", despite the number of people who seem to think otherwise. 188.29.159.108 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Vital articles"

I have a query. The rules state that "vital articles" qualify for four points. Does this include Level 4 vital articles? --Lobo (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for an answer to this please? It applies to the current Katharine Hepburn nomination, I'm not sure if she should be getting 4 points for being listed as a Level 4 vital article or not. --Lobo (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I make no claims to be any kind of authority on this, but seeing as the link goes to level 3articles, it seems to me that 3 or higher (1 or 2) would count, but level 4 would not. Coolug (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing what everyone else here thinks, but for now I'll tentatively say yes, the expanded list of vital articles (the level 4 articles) is valid for the +4 point vital article bonus. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll update the point count for now then (it can be changed back if there ends up being a consensus against this). --Lobo (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to count level 4 too; we might clarify the rules & agree they just get 3 points perhaps, but they should be recognised. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Main Page date change request

I left a date change request at User_talk:Raul654#Main_page_appearance:_South_Side.2C_Chicago. Should I have left it here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

When would be an appropriate date to run Reception history of Jane Austen ? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an article that doesn't lend itself well to any particular anniversary. The non-specific date slot is the most suitable place to request it. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I have to strongly disagree with you there. 28 Jan 2013 will be the 200th anniversary of the publication of Pride and Prejudice, and the English-speaking world will be swamped with Austeniana; it would be crazy to waste one of our few really high-class literature articles on a random date just so Hariztoh can continue his apparent quest to rack up as many drive-by nominations as possible. 188.28.154.19 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was inquiring as to the best date for this one to run. Jan 28th would seem to be the best date. Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

June 5

Why was the featured article for June 5 changed from Elizabeth II to Transit of Venus without any discussion? --Inops (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was at user talk: Raul654. The rationale is that the Transit of Venus is exceptionally rare, so it is best run on 5th June, but there's a whole weekend of jubilee events so Elizabeth's article could be moved without major problem. Bencherlite^Talk 11:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Notifying the article's primary editors

A custom seems to have grown up amongst the "regulars" here that those editors who aren't primary editors of an FA ought to notify those who are of a TFA nomination. It's a custom that non-regulars wouldn't know about because it's not in the instructions (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions, to save you hunting for the link). I have just boldly added it to the instructions. Feel free to discuss, or to revert and discuss, or to improve the wording; but it hardly seems fair to make adverse comments to those whom we sometimes refer to as "drive-by nominators" if we keep our expectations to ourselves. Bencherlite^Talk 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Olympic games

I am a Swede and I would love to see Henrik Sedin presented on the main page. But! July 27 should really be reserved for Olympic Games. This is the inauguration of the 2012 Olympic Games. There is (peculiarly) no other sports article nearby (0 for congestion). It was promoted in 2009 (2 for age). Date related as explained (1.5, 0.5 because summer olympic games are held only every four years, so this is more than a date, but less then a 10 year jubilee). A 1000 vital article (4). So, a total of 7.5 points are due to Olympic Games on 2012-07-27. --Ettrig (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the question? Henrik Sedin could be nominated for his birthday on September 26, or it could be put in the non-specific date slot a couple weeks after the Olympics (so it doesn't garner opposes based on the proximity to another sports-related item). -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No Olympic Games!

hello,

I am curious why Olympic Games was not featured this day! All issues were resolved days ago. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I was curious about this also. The Nick Adenhart article, while deserving of TFA, has no connection to the date July 27.--Chimino (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because no one nominated it? Ettrig (see above) should have done so but posted here instead. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the day of the closing ceremony?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone will be truly sick of them by then. I've nominated as non-specific, but people are already sick it seems. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Request precedence

This is the first time that I have been involved in this process, so I don't want to cause trouble by making unnecessary edits to the request page, but I am not sure why my nomination of 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix has been superseded by South Side, Chicago, as both articles are credited with the same number of points, but my request is for an earlier date, so does it have priority? Or does that only apply when choosing between articles to replace with one's own request? If I were to unhide my request and re-hide the South Side request, what would happen? Thanks,--Midgrid(talk) 14:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can replace a nomination with another nomination with the same number of points, unless the nomination you are replacing has at least 5 votes and at least 50% opposes. Your nomination should still be on the page. I think this situation was partially caused by you placing your nomination in the wrong place (it should be at the top of the "date requests" section, not at the bottom). However, even if your request were actually for a later date than South Side, Chicago, I don't think South Side, Chicago could replace it. The rules say "If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours . . .". While the first note on which article to replace (about requests with 50% opposes) says to ignore points, the third note (the one involving earlier and later requested dates) doesn't say anything about that. So you should only be applying the instructions in the third note after you have determined that the article you are nominating has more points than at least one of the nominations that are already present. Basically, those appear to me to be instructions on which nomination to replace when your nomination has more points than multiple other nominations, and do not allow nominations to be replaced by other nominations with the same number of points. So I think South Side, Chicago shouldn't have been nominated at all, as it didn't have more points than any of the other nominations already on the page. Calathan (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Calathan - South Side cannot be nominated unless it has more points than an article it is replacing, or an article has sufficient opposes to make it removable, as stated in the instructions. The instructions do not allow for unopposed articles to be remove by articles with the same number of points. However, as the grand prix article is nominated for August 3 it will either be selected or fall off the page very soon, and then Tony can continue with the nomination of the South Side article. I will now unhide the grand prix nomination and move it to the top of the page, and rehide the South Side blurb. Bencherlite^Talk 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the 2pt August 11 nomination was made before the 2pt August 3 nomination. Do we want to set a policy where people can bump other articles by "accidentally" claiming the wrong number of points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I am a bit confused on when the August 3 article was nominated. It appeared that there were only 4 nominations when I nominated my article. Something may have been wrong with the formattign of the page however. Was August 3 nominated without proper page formatting before my article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I submitted my nomination about eight hours before you, but, as has been pointed out above, I submitted it at the bottom of the page by mistake, instead of the top. Sorry if this caused any confusion.--Midgrid(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This diff is the grand prix being added; you can see from it that it's the fifth date request present. This diff shows you adding South Side, bringing the total to six date requests. The times on each diff also show the prix being first. The prix hadn't been added to the summary table yet, which may be the source of your confusion, but the request and blurb were already present. GRAPPLE X 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

USS New Ironsides has more points than both, but since it just became eligible, and there's no other article for its date, I'll hold off formally nominating it until some of these earlier dates have been taken care of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My request was not successful, so I have removed it and unhidden the South Side nomination.--Midgrid(talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the reason I didn't use this nomination is that we had a sports figure recently, and I'm planning to do an Olympics-related one in the near future; and we have another one requested for August 8 (which will probably not be granted either). Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationale; it's perfectly understandable! I'll set my alarm for next August... ;) --Midgrid(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)