Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Idea

Has anyone thought about creating a list of all the FA that have not been on the main page and including in that list the dates that are special to those FA so that certain large anniversaries for FA are not missed. I think it would also make Raul's job easier. For example, the list could look something like this:

Article Important Month/Day date Important years Close anniversary dates Notes
Anthony Roll None 1546 - Rolls first presented to Henry VIII
1680 - Charles gave rolls
1858 - Sold to British Museum		 2016 - (470 year anniversary of presentation)
2010 - (320 year aniversary of Charles giving rolls
2018 - (150 year of sale)		 No set date for anniversary
Bronwyn Bancroft None 1958 - Born 2018 - (60th Birthday) No set date for date of birth
Bodiam Castle None 1385 - Castle Built 2015 - (630 year anniversary of building) -
1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing February 27 1962 2012 - (50 year anniversary of bombing)
2007 Samjhauta Express bombings February 18 2007 2012 - (5 year anniversary of bombing)

That way it would be easy to see when major anniversary dates are coming up. Any thoughts? Remember (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here. Bear in mind that many FA authors intensely dislike having articles they've worked on TFA'd, and won't necessarily appreciate their being highlighted as suitable candidates. – iridescent 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. But I am a little confused. Are you in favor of such lists (in which case I would think we should try to be more comprehensive in the list) or do you not like such lists. I am surprised that some people don't want the articles they have worked on to be TFA, but that information could also be included in the list so that people generally refrain from nominating them. Remember (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be an awful lot of work ... not to mention the updating!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea in theory, but it would rely on the articles' main writers keeping the list updated. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm vaguely opposed to the list, basically because I think it's a lot of work for no real benefit. Those people who do want their articles on the main page know where WP:TFAR is, and those people are precisely those who know which anniversaries are most significant. If you're really "surprised that some people don't want the articles they have worked on to be TFA" I can only assume you've never had an article at TFA; it's one of the most dispiriting experiences it's possible to have on Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Opposed, because dates are by no means the only factor in scheduling TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts in response to those opinions expressed above: (1) the list does not have to ever be totally comprehensive, even if it is just a fraction of the articles it would still be a useful tool to see what articles have important dates coming up; (2) I know that the relvant dates and anniversaries are not the only important factors, but they are an important factor and this list would help point out the major anniversaries that are coming up; and (3) this list would not be used to mandate that certain articles be featured on those dates, it would just highlight certain dates which would be good opportunities for featuring that specific article. In conclusion, I am not proposing that the current system be replaced, I am just proposing that this list could be a new tool to help further the current process (and evidently others already have similar ideas). Those that think the tool is useless don't have to use it or help make it; those who think it would be useful can help create and make it more comprehensive. That was the basic idea. Further thoughts from anyone? Remember (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I first came up with this idea when I noticed we missed the 30 year anniversary date of The Empire Strikes Back even though it was already a FA. Instead the article was TFA on June 17 in response to the 30 anniversary buzz. This to me indicated that there were some blind spots in the TFA process that people were missing. Remember (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
O Rly? It didn't not run because we missed the anniversary date; it was nominated for the anniversary date but Raul declined it as he'd just run another Star Wars article. – iridescent 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Touché. Remember (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this idea hasn't gotten much traction, but if anyone is interested in making this idea a reality, I have set up a list here User:Remember/TFA list that I have been working on. If anyone wants to help out, feel free to edit the page directly. Remember (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming request question

Hi there. I'm a bit confused about this but for the "upcoming request" section, can an user only put one article up at a time? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the potential upcoming requests template at the top of the page? You may put as many articles as you like in there, but you may only have one nomination on the request page WP:TFA/R at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

I happened to notice that there is a featured article called Cock Lane ghost which has not yet appeared on the main page. I suggest that, unless something better comes along, this article be used for TFA on 1 April 2011. Firstly, it has a humorous name. Second, the article itself is about a hoax. Smells like awesome to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of time between now and next April Fools. We'll see what happens. Raul654 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That was written by User:Parrot of Doom. Since PoD wrote the article used for this year's April 1 TFA, and spent the next six weeks reverting vandalism to it and scraping abuse off his talk-page, I suspect he won't be wildly keen on the idea. Having an article TFA'd is bad enough at the best of times, but everyone recognises that it's necessary and resigns themselves to it happening occasionally. Two April 1 TFAs in a row smacks of cruel and unusual punishment, though. – iridescent 10:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I only wrote a small portion of it, Wife selling was Malleus's pride and joy really. Cock Lane ghost needs a bit of a copyedit but that's no problem, but there would also be Cotswold Olimpick Games to consider (Malleus again), Tobacco smoke enema is another one, should I ever manage to get it to FAC. Isn't there some article about a nuclear-powered rocket park that would also be suitable? Parrot of Doom 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's Quehanna Wild Area, by User:Ruhrfisch. That one had a great proposed blurb. –Grondemar 12:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it did—I wouldn't mind seeing that article run on April 1 next year. As Raul said, there's plenty of time between now and then to see what happens. Jonyungk (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to propose my Ashford v Thornton but Raul ran it. I took a fair amount of abuse on that article from a couple of people. I will poke through my books on legal humor and so forth to see if I can come up with another candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are any points allocated or taken away because of an article's principal editors, then I think that anything written by PoD or me ought to be excluded from consideration. We specialise in the unusual, the by-ways of history. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

selected article proposal

I propose that we should add points to an article if it was a selected article in a portal. If it was selected a year ago, the article gets 1 point, if it was selected two years ago, it'll get 2 points, and if it was selected three or more years ago, it'll get three points. How does it sound? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 21:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What does being selected in a portal have anything to do with an article being selected for TFA? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely oppose. (1) Many (possibly most) portals are semi-defunct and maintained by one or two people. (2) It would unfairly penalise topics not covered by portals, while giving a huge boost to areas covered by multiple portals (Portal:London Transport – Portal:UK Railways – Portal:Trains – Portal:London, for instance). (3) While some portals select on grounds of quality, many select on a Buggins' Turn principle to give coverage to all areas in their remit, disregarding article quality to a large extent. – iridescent 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for August 29

Last of the Summer Wine is a British sitcom written by Roy Clarke broadcast since 1973 on BBC One. The longest-running sitcom in the world, it premiered as an episode of Comedy Playhouse and having run for 31 series, the last episode is airing on 29th August 2010. Set and filmed in and around Holmfirth, West Yorkshire, the series centres on a trio of old men whose line-up has changed over the years, although most notably comprised Bill Owen as the scruffy and child-like Compo, Peter Sallis as deep-thinking, meek Norman Clegg and Brian Wilde as quirky war veteran Foggy. Other "third men" in the trio include Michael Bates as authoritarian snob Blamire, Michael Aldridge as eccentric inventor Seymour and Frank Thornton as former police officer Truly. Gradually, the cast has grown to include a variety of supporting characters, each contributing their own subplots to the show and often becoming unwillingly involved in the schemes of the trio. Although critics have noted a decline in the show's quality since Owen's death in 1999, Last of the Summer Wine has been shown in 25 countries, garnered large audiences for the BBC and has been praised for its positive portrayal of older people and family-friendly humour. (more...)

I have calculated this as having about 4/5 points - 2 as by the requested date it is just under two years since promotion on 8th September 2008. 1 point because the date is relevant - the final episode of this hugely long-running series is airing on 29th August. 1 because the primary editor, User:Redfarmer, has not had a main page article before (although appears to have left, unfortunately). I was going to add one extra because there haven't really been any British sitcom related articles since Yes Minister, but I suppose Sydney Newman was a BBC television-related page. Bob talk 14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You should be proposing it on the main WP:TFAR page, not the talkpage; remove whatever says "next to be replaced" in the table if there's not a free slot, providing this has more points. I'd suggest waiting a few days, as the articles proposed for 6 and 9 August are both going to be scheduled or rejected soon, and that will free up two slots without the need to bump anyone. – iridescent 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah right, thanks - it was the bumping I was trying to avoid, really, plus I wasn't quite sure if I had made a correct point allocation. I'll check back in a few days. (I haven't done this before, as you can probably tell) Bob talk 14:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Four points should be correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I think three points. Almost two years is not two years. It's arbitrary, but we've been strict about it. Please feel free to nominate the series (which I have watched since it is usually on after As Time Goes By but I'm afraid not enjoyed much ...)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I hadn't checked the exact promotion date, though I do remember reviewing the article at FAC in 2008 around this time. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The article misses its 2-year promotion deadline by a mere 10 days. However, I am not sure whether it counts as only 1 point for the "date" rule. As I understand it, it is 1-point if the Day + Month is related to the subject, and up to 6 points if it is a significant anniversary (e.g. a multiple of 10). In this particular situation, the Day + Month + Year is strongly significant to the subject. How is that normally counted? I would argue that it is worthy to be TFA on the day of the show's final episode, than to wait another 2.5 years for the 30th anniversary of the first episode. However the points would seem to suggest otherwise... Bluap (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I would just list it when a spot opens up and not worry about the points. Points are really not a big deal. At three points the article is unlikely to be bumped. –Grondemar(UTC)12:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Six points are awarded for centennials, not 10 year anniversaries. Don't sweat it too much, just wait for a slot and grab it, there is plenty of time yet. Three points means that the article is unlikely to be bumped. It has happened, but it is rare. Obviously it means that every article on the page has at least three points, and if there are others with three points, this one happens to be the one that loses the tiebreaker. Relax.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2010

Have just nominated this on the main TFA proposal page as having 3 points. Bob talk 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from request page

September 11

Roy of the Rovers is a British comic strip about the life and exploits of a fictional footballer named Roy Race, who played for Melchester Rovers. The strip first appeared in the Tiger in 1954, before giving its name to a weekly (and later monthly) comic magazine, published by IPC and Fleetway from 1976 until 1995, in which it was the main feature. The weekly strip ran until 1993, following Roy's playing career until its conclusion after he lost his left foot in a helicopter crash. When the monthly comic was launched later that year, the focus switched to Roy's son, Rocky, who also played for Melchester. This publication folded after only 19 issues. The adventures of the Race family were subsequently featured from 1997 until May 2001 in the monthly Match of the Day football magazine, in which father and son were reunited as manager and player respectively. Football-themed stories were a staple of British comics from the 1950s onwards, and Roy of the Rovers was one of the most popular. To keep the strip exciting, Melchester was almost every year either competing for major honours or struggling against relegation to a lower division. The strip followed the structure of the football season, thus there were several months each year when there was no football.(more...)

I first aimed this one at Mar 20, 2009,[1] but its crappy state at the time kept that from succeeding. The article eventually went to FAR and received a hefty improvement by Malleus Fatuorum; so, I tried again for a generic date in July 2010 (which was later moved to coincide with the World Cup final on July 11)[2] but it was beaten out by an article actually related to the World Cup finals - which, admittedly, had been requested on the talk page before I made my nomination. Sigh!

Well maybe third time's the charm? I see a couple of good dates in September: one being the first appearance of Roy and the team, and the other is Sept 25, when the series got its own title. I could settle for the 25th, but it always seems to be best to aim for the first appearance of something - however, in this case, I assumed that September 11th would be tough competition... still I was encouraged[3] to try anyway. So, here I am! As Iridescent pointed out, we don't need a 9/11 attack article every year on that date, and the tenth anniversary is next year so that would be a better time to feature such an article (though I'm sure I'll still come to tears when I see it!)

Last time it got two points for a 2006 FA, and two points for no similar article within 6 months. This time it should be 2 points for age, and one point for related anniversary date, but not sure how long if there have been any similar articles since July. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment This article is a five pointer—two points for similarity, one point for date relevance, and two points for promotion date. However, the TFAR instructions say "Currently accepting requests from August 15 to September 14 (only up to September 4 if the entry would have five or more points)." (emphasis mine) Therefore, I have moved this request to talk until we approach that date. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow, didn't realize (or should I say realise) that this one would be this high for that date - no problem, I can hang on a bit. :) BOZ (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seems like September 25 would be a better date. Jonyungk (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    I thought about that one, too. The character debuted 11 September 1954, and the Roy of the Rovers comic launched on 25 September 1976. The character debut seems like a more significant date, especially because the regular comic started 20 years later. If there is more of a call to have this one on 9/25 instead of 9/11, I'm fine with that. BOZ (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a day in September

Parking Night by Elie Wiesel here until a slot becomes free. It's the 50th anniversary of publication in English in September. I'm trying to find out which day in September, but in the meantime I'd like to propose it for general use that month.

Night is a work by Elie Wiesel about his experience with his father in the Nazi concentration camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald in 1944–1945. In just over 100 pages of a narrative described as devastating in its simplicity, Weisel writes about the death of God and his own increasing disgust with humanity, reflected in the inversion of the father-child relationship as his father declines to a helpless state and Wiesel becomes his resentful caregiver. He was 16 years old when Buchenwald was liberated by the U.S. Army in April 1945, too late for his father who died in the camp after a beating. After some difficulty finding a publisher, Wiesel's work was published in Yiddish in 1955, in French in 1958, and in English in September 1960, and 50 years later is regarded as one of the bedrocks of Holocaust literature. It is the first book in a trilogy—Night, Dawn, Day—marking Wiesel's transition from darkness to light, according to the Jewish tradition of beginning a new day at nightfall. "In Night," he said, "I wanted to show the end, the finality of the event. Everything came to an end—man, history, literature, religion, God. There was nothing left. And yet we begin again with night." (more...)

Points: two for promotion over two years ago; four for 50 years; and I believe two for nothing about the Holocaust being featured in the last six months. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, if no specific date can be determined, run it Sept. 17 if no one wants the date, the day before Yom Kippur (if we run it on Yom Kippur, observant Jews would be unable to see it main page). That has become a day for introspection. At least four points, I would have to think about the no six months thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw there was a slot, so I've proposed it for September 16 as that was the last day acceptable for this round. I've added it with eight points, but by all means change that if you feel it's not right. I'll keep emailing the publisher in the meantime to see if I can find out the precise date. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I've removed the request for now because the instructions say request dates go "only up to September 6 if the entry would have five or more points", and I'm quite certain this one's at least 6 points. Feel free to put it back up later. Dabomb87Public (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I would nom it for Sep 6, then. If you don't care about the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I corrected that thinking it was my typo. Have changed it back. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

August 24

Dwarf planet would fit this date, normally with 3 pts (basic subject, almost 2 year-old FA, date the term was defined). But today's TFA, Vega, seems to put it to 0 pts. Am I right? Nergaal (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 21,2010

Resolved
 – Smallman12q (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is my first time nominating, but I see the main page is full, so I'll put it here for now for August 21,2010.

Edmund Evans (1826–1905) was a prominent English wood engraver and colour printer during the Victorian era. Evans specialized in full-colour printing, which became popular in the mid-19th century. He employed and collaborated with illustrators such as Walter Crane, Randolph Caldecott, Kate Greenaway, and Richard Doyle to produce what are now considered to be classic children's books. Although little is known about his life, he wrote a short autobiography before his death in 1905 in which he described his life as a printer in Victorian London.

After finishing an apprenticeship, Edmunds went into business for himself. By the early 1850s, he had made a reputation as a printer of covers for cheap novels known as yellow-backs. In the early 1860s, Evans began to print children's toy books and picture books in association with the printing house Routledge and Warne. His intention was to produce books for children that were beautiful and inexpensive. For three decades he produced multiple volumes each year, first illustrated by Crane, and later by Caldecott and Greenaway.

Evans used the woodblock printing technique called chromoxylography, which...

1 point for date relevant to topic, (maybe 2 points for there not being an engraver/printer featured).Smallman12q (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - August 21 is already scheduled. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh...Smallman12q (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you can try for 23 February 2011 (185th birthday) when the time comes. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping to see it sooner than later...I don't have any experience here at nominating here so I don't know how rigid this is...guess I should've nominated earlier.Smallman12q (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Raul for putting it on the 21st!Smallman12q (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2

Since the main page is at full capacity, I'll post this here first. Yes, another Alberta politician...

Alexander Cameron Rutherford, first premier of Alberta.
Alexander Cameron Rutherford, first premier of Alberta.
Alexander Cameron Rutherford (1857–1941) was a Canadian lawyer and politician who served as the first Premier of Alberta from 1905 to 1910. Born in Ormond, Ontario, he studied and practised law in Ottawa before moving with his family to the Northwest Territories in 1895. In 1905, Alberta Lieutenant Governor George Bulyea asked Rutherford to form the new province's first government. As Premier, his first task was to win a workable majority in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, which he did in the 1905 provincial election. His second was to provide the apparatus of provincial government: his government established everything from speed limits to a provincial court system. The legislature also controversially, and with Rutherford's support, selected Edmonton over rival Calgary as the provincial capital. Calgarians' bruised feelings were not salved when the government located the University of Alberta, a project dear to the Premier's heart, in his hometown of Strathcona, just across the North Saskatchewan River from Edmonton. (more...)

I'm too experienced with this process, do please do tinker with the blurb and all, but here's my run-down of the points:

1 for being promoted between one and two years ago 1 for a date relevant to the article topic (105th anniversary of his premiership)

September 1 would have been better (Alberta's date it became a province), but September 2 works as well. Connormah 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Timing and specific dates

There is some talk at Anime and manga wikiproject about nominating Tokyo Mew Mew for September as it'll be the 10th anniversary since its initial serialization. However, there is no specific date that is verifiable for the initial release date, just the month. In addition, the main contributor who brought the article to FA status, User:AnmaFinotera, recently retired from Wikipedia which complicates finding an exact date.

I am wondering if for nominating a specific date for September, would we be able to use any date (and thus the points for decennial anniversary) or not since the nonspecific doesn't allow for timing issues and would actually impact whether we could even place this up there (it would get 3pts at most without timing).陣内Jinnai 00:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We have granted such exceptions before, for 200th anniversary and also Night for 50th. I don't know about a 10th anniversary, that is hardly lost in the mists of history. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In this case I'm think it is not a situation where people have forgotten a date, but just that the magazine only lists a month and year on this issue. I'm sure there must have been a date when the magazine first went on sale, but I don't know if that would be published anywhere. Unless perhaps the magazine always goes on sale the same day each month. Calathan (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Nakayoshi, the magaizine it was originally published in, doesn't say anything about publishing on specific dates. Their website doesn't give any results it and the custom google search doesn't seem to very likely to find such prospects either (the only listings are for the volumes released later). It very well could be like a number of magazines and not have a specific release date.陣内Jinnai 02:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Or it could have been released in August, or July even, like many magazines.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I realize that, but rather than get into that very long discussion (its been had elsewhere), the basic premise is that we go with what is officially lists as the release date which in this case is September because that's verifiable and the accepted practice.陣内Jinnai 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Any more word on this?陣内Jinnai 17:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, personally I'm against it. We've opened a loophole for articles whose roots are lost in the past. 2000 is very much in the internet era, and I'm of the opinion that you could find out the first date of sale with enough research, most likely offline, but possibly with hints online (don't ask me to do it, not my job). If not, this may be a case where you just can't get that point. It happens. However, I'm just one voice here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I think your overestimating the release date phenomia. Japan does not chonicle its release dates for serialized chapter released like the US comic industry does. Even Amazon Japan doesn't go back that far and it has 2 release dates for the oldest one. Offline sources, due to the rarity (these items are usually tossed like any other magazine and its a decade old) its unlikely to find a copy.陣内Jinnai 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I was able to sneak Expedition to the Barrier Peaks in there on release month alone, although a 30th anniversary is a bit more significant than a 10th anniversary. I think this sort of situation is why the non-specific date request is a more attractive option. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For Barrier or for the magazine?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Both situations, I think. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: The Political Cesspool for October 26?

The Political Cesspool is a weekly talk radio show based in Tennessee and currently broadcast from the Millington-based station AM 1380 WLRM. It was co-founded by James Edwards, who now serves as its primary host. The Political Cesspool, which bills itself as "the South's Foremost Conservative Populist Radio Program", has aired interviews with numerous guests including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, bestselling author Jerome Corsi, and paleoconservative activist Pat Buchanan. The show describes itself as "pro-White" and its Statement of Principles includes a desire "to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races." Because of the show's promotion of anti-Semitic, white nationalist, and white supremacist views, it has attracted criticism from publications and groups such as The Nation, The New Republic, Newsweek, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League, among others. (more...)

This article was previously scheduled for a date in July, but was subsequently "unscheduled" due to the fact that the article was going through a heated content dispute at that time. The content dispute has since been resolved ([4]), however. Since October 26 is the sixth anniversary of the show's first broadcast, I think that might be a good date. The number of points would be four; one for timing, one for contributor history (I am the primary author of the article and have not had any articles featured on TFA yet), two for main page representation (no articles on radio shows, or on anything relating to white supremacy, for the past six months).
Currently there are no pictures of the show's host (James Edwards) available for us to use. I tried e-mailing James Edwards to request one in the past, but he was less than cooperative. I also have reason to believe that Jamie Kelso may have photos of James Edwards in his possession, and have posted a message on a his talk page requesting that he release them under one of the appropriate free licenses. However, since he does not edit Wikipedia frequently, there's no guarantee he'll respond promptly. If anyone has any pictures of James Edwards that they'd like to release under an appropriate FL, by all means do so. Otherwise, we could always run this as an image-less TFA. I thought I should propose this well in advance, to give other users plenty of time to prepare (and, hopefully, to find a good image). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
How about the logo? We could at least crop the words "Political Cesspool", lettering cannot be copyrighted, as I have been repeatedly told.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that might work. I've added it to the blurb. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think October 26 is a week early for The Political Cesspool. Just saying.... -- tariqabjotu 03:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would advise against featuring an article about a political broadcast that might be skewed to one party or the other on Election Day. We'll get calls.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Tariq's statement may have been made with tongue in cheek. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
This radio show actually has very strong ties to the American Third Position Party (James Edwards sits on its board of directors). So yeah, not appropriate for Election Day. October 26 is better. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

September 27, 2010

I see the main page is currently at max capacity, so I thought it'd be best to post my nomination here first.

Series creator and executive producer Seth MacFarlane.
Series creator and executive producer Seth MacFarlane.
"Road to the Multiverse" is the first episode of the eighth season of the animated comedy series Family Guy. Directed by Greg Colton and written by Wellesley Wild, the episode originally aired on Fox in the United States on September 27, 2009. In "Road to the Multiverse", two of the show's main characters, baby Stewie and anthropomorphic dog Brian, who are voiced by series creator Seth MacFarlane (pictured), use an "out-of-this-world" remote control to travel through a series of various parallel universes. They eventually end up in a world where dogs rule and humans obey. This causes Brian to become reluctant to return home to his own universe, and he ultimately ends up breaking the remote, much to the dismay of Stewie, who soon seeks a replacement. The "Road to" episodes which have aired throughout various seasons of Family Guy were inspired by the Road to... comedy films starring Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour, though this episode was not originally conceived as a "Road to" show. Critical responses to the episode were mostly positive; critics praised its storyline, numerous cultural references, and its use of various animation styles. (more...)
  • Four points. I'd like to have it featured on the main page on September 27, as that is the day it aired this past year. Alternatively, the show's ninth season begins on September 26, so that date may also work, but I think September 27 would be better, if it receives the proper amount of support on the main page. I've looked through the archives, and the last article to be promoted of a similar subject was on April 30, with The Simpsons episode "The Joy of Sect". Also, as the primary editor of the article, I have never received a TFA. Any feedback would be extremely helpful. Thanks. Gage (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say three points. One for nominator, one for date, and one for similarity. The last TV episode to appear on TFA was "The Beginning of the End" (May 24), and that was four months ago. Note that we featured a TV show on July 16, but I think they are different enough. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Next to be Replaced"

I see with this, Stephens City, Virginia is the next to be replaced. Is there anything I can do to prevent this or am I just along for the ride on this one? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do, since whether an article is next to be replaced depends on how many points it has, and there's nothing any individual editor can do to increase the number of points. Sorry. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I kinda figured. Well, I might wait a couple weeks and put it back in the queue. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Does the city have an annual festival? If so, you might want to try renominating it on the start of the festival. TFA noms get an extra point if they are nominated for a date relevant to the article topic. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The annual "Newtown Hertiage Festival" is during Memorial Day weekend, plus the 252nd anniversary of the town's founding is on September 1st, 2010, but that day was already taken, hence why I took September 10th (1+0=1 was my thinking). The town won't celebrate it's 260th anniversary for 8 more years and 275th for 13 more years, so it is alot of waiting no matter which route I take. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You could try nominating it for the nonspecific date slot too, as soon as that slot becomes available. Often, an article nominated to the NSD slot will get queued (by Raul) within a very short time, like two days. There's no guarantee someone won't replace it before then, but it's always worth a shot. Just because an article is first to be replaced doesn't mean it will be replaced. Sometimes you just need to cross your fingers ;-). Stonemason89 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Fingers and toes are now crossed. Making it really hard to type though. :) I will keep the NSD slot idea in mind if it does in fact get replaced. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If it helps, I am waiting for Raul to schedule a couple entries off that list before nominating Terry Fox, specifically because I don't want to kick your first potential TFA off. Resolute 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Resolute. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolute, the nonspecific-date section is now open. Maybe you could nominate Terry Fox for the NSD slot? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I let Resolute know about the above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sept 19 is the best anniversary (date of the 30th Terry Fox run), though the NSD slot would make sense for the week or so leading up, as many Canadian schools will be teaching about him in the time preceding the run. That is a good idea. Resolute 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I replaced Stephens City, Virginia with the higher point 2005 Texas Longhorns football team since September 2 was only a couple of days away from being scheduled; I moved the blurb below so it can be restored once there is room. –Grondemar 18:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added it to the nonspecific date slot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries Grondemar, Thanks HJ. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that the same thing seems to be about to happen for the Sept 14th nom for the Rosetta Stone article. There has been some dispute on the discussion as to the number of points it ought to be assigned. A few people (including myself) think that it ought to have an additional point for the 3-month span for an article on a similar topic (longer if the argument about the focus on ancient languages is accepted), and there are good arguments made that it also ought to have an additional point for being a basic subject matter (certainly my 12-year old studied it in her curriculum!) It seems like no-one has responded to these issues since the original points allocation. Before it is bumped, could those points at least be addressed so that I and others are more clear on the guidelines that apply? Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture choice

Lately there have been a few blurbs here with strange picture choices. I just wanted to give you guys a rule of thumb for choosing them. In a nutshell - choose the picture that is most closely related to the topic of the article.

If you are asking for a book, the cover of the book is the best choice; if that's not available (if it's still copyright or something) then the next-best choice would be a picture of the author. If you are requesting a biographic article, there is a strong expectation that the picture will be the subject of that biography.

Recently, someone requested the 2005 Texas A&M Longhorns, and the suggested pic was a Tower on campus, instead of the (many) pictures of the team itself. This is an example of choosing an abstract image when plenty of much better ones are available. For another recent request, the Founation of Time, a low-quality 1920s era picture was suggested when a much better one was available (color, higher resolution, direct-on instead of shot an an oblique angle). Raul654 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC) edited by Karanacs - the typo made my poor Texas A&M Aggie heart cry little maroon tears Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you there. In some cases, the only free-use image of the subject itself is fine at large size in the article, but loses so much detail as to be incomprehensible at postage-stamp size on the main page. In the particular example you cite (Fountain of Time), the image you've gone with has an extremely dubious copyright status (Illinois has no freedom-of-panorama law, and the work itself is still in copyright, so someone taking a photo in 2007 has no authority to "release all rights to this image" without the copyright holder's consent), which is (I assume) why Tony didn't originally suggest it. – iridescent 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The founation was installed pre-1923. How is it not in the public domain? Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if that constitutes "publication" for copyright purposes (although it's 74 years since the creator's death, which may make it moot). Is it worth asking Elcobbola for an opinion? (I suspect even if it is in copyright, nobody will complain; the holder is presumably either the city or the state, either of which would likely be happy for us to be promoting the city.) – iridescent 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an unpublished work, so the copyright term in the United States is determined by the life of the author (70 years after death for known authors). As Taft died in 1936, it is indeed PD. I've endeavored to keep this brief; if explanation of the underlying reasoning, statutes, case law, etc. is desired, let me know. Эlcobbola talk 00:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I only used the UT Tower picture rather than the team picture because I thought it looked pretty. :-) I have no problem with using the team picture. –Grondemar 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The UT tower does look quite spectacular when it glows orange against the backdrop of downtown Austin ... but I agree with Raul that a picture of actual football players would be better. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So that this doesn't go away when this is archived, I propose we add the following to the TFA/R instructions, under "Suggested Formatting" after the warning not to use fair-use images:

"Choose the free-use picture most relevant to the topic of the article."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Seems a reasonable idea. Colds7ream (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Sounds good to me. –Grondemar 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Common sense; surprised we need to say so, but if we do... BencherliteTalk 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Request for 12 September

I am holding off from formalising this request, as it's a 6-point centenary and I don't want to block one of the five places longer than necessary. If other editors have specific reasons for requesting 12 September, I will relinquish my claim; otherwise, can the date be left clear? I will make my request in a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Note: the article is Mahler's eighth symphony)

I will definitely be supporting. You could always post the blurb here for the moment. Bob talk 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. I will create 998 sockpuppets if necessary to get the magic 1000! BencherliteTalk 16:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Addendum. Apparently, one editor (who shall remain nameless, but you can find out by reading this report to ANI of all places) read this comment of mine as an indication that I was actually going to create 998 sockpuppets and thereby stack the vote in the article's favour. For the avoidance of doubt, I am probably not going to do this. BencherliteTalk 22:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably, hmm? I'd better indef block you just to be on the safe side.  ;) BOZ (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone at ANI suggested that I should have used {{sarcasm}}. Like that's going to happen... BencherliteTalk 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Haha, 499 each? [sarcasm] Bob talk 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and nominate this now. Raul is scheduled through Sep 10, which means the next time he goes in he'll likely schedule the 11th and 12th. This request, therefore, wouldn't be taking a spot for too long. We don't want Raul to miss this one... Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead, it's there. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

Parts of Vvardenfell region of Morrowind controlled by Hlaalu, Telvanni and Redoran houses

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, simply referred to as Morrowind, is a single player computer role-playing game developed by Bethesda Game Studios, and published by Bethesda Softworks and Ubisoft. It is the third installment in The Elder Scrolls series of games. It was released in North America in 2002 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox. Well-received publicly and critically, selling over four million copies and winning more than 60 awards, including Game of the Year, Morrowind holds an average review score of 89% from both Metacritic and Game Rankings. The game spawned two expansion packs for the PC: Tribunal and Bloodmoon. Both were eventually repackaged into a full set containing all three, Morrowind: Game of the Year Edition, which shipped on October 30, 2003 for both PC and Xbox. The main story takes place on Vvardenfell, an island in the Dunmer province of Morrowind, which lies in the empire of Tamriel and is far from the more civilized lands to the west and south that typified Daggerfall and Arena. The central quests concern the deity Dagoth Ur, housed within the volcanic Red Mountain, who seeks to gain power and break Morrowind free from Imperial reign. Morrowind was designed with an open-ended free-form style of gameplay in mind, with a lessened emphasis on the game's main plot. This choice received mixed reviews in the gaming press, though such feelings were tempered by reviewers' appreciation of Morrowind's expansive and detailed game world.(more...)

Four (or Five) Three points - Article was promoted to FA in May 2007, no similar article has been featured on TFA for 3 months if I recall correctly, I can't be sure if a similar article has been featured more than 6 months ago and a significant contributor hasn't had an article feature on TFA. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 07:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could the lettering in the lead image be broken out into its own image?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Success! The map is a PD image :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Max days for nomination

There is article nominated for Sept 27 which looks like it was nominated a few days ago. However above i see 20 days prior as being the max. I dont come here often so just wondering is that normal. I was going to Nominate Halo 3 for sept 14. since Halo Reach is being released that day but all slots are taken. or i guess settle for sept 25. when Halo 3 was released. -- Ashish-g55 13:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since high-point articles clog up the page and are unlikely to be bumped, we allow them only to be nominated 20 days in advance. Lower point (4 or less) articles may be nominated 30 days in advance. That time period runs from the last day that Raul has scheduled, right now he has scheduled through September 9, so lower point articles may be nominated through October 9, higher point articles only through September 29. By way of example, that means that Hoover Dam, an eight-point article which may be nominated for September 30, must wait until Raul schedules at least one more article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be a good idea to change the rule so that no article can be nominated more than 20 days ahead of time. That way, you wouldn't have articles three weeks from now preventing more recent articles from being nominated. –Grondemar 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think another problem is that the articles that are up aren't being promoted fast enough; like according to the schedule, Roy of the Rovers can be approved right now, but it's still up, so maybe we should approve articles in advance and not wait till the day before. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Raul has (and has always been AFAIK) in charge of "approving" and selecting articles for TFA; it's not up to us. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe also he is the only incumbent. When he approves an article, it goes onto the queue, and he almost always works in date order.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Halo 3 is a first-person shooter video game developed by Bungie for Xbox 360. The game is the third title in the Halo series and concludes the story arc that began in Halo: Combat Evolved and continued in Halo 2. September 26, 2007 in Europe; and September 27, 2007 in Japan. On the day before its official release, 4.2 million units of Halo 3 were in retail outlets. Halo 3's story centers on the interstellar war between 26th century humanity, led by the United Nations Space Command, and a collection of alien races known as the Covenant. The player assumes the role of the Master Chief, a cybernetically enhanced supersoldier, as he wages war in defense of humanity, assisted by human Marines as well as an allied alien race called Elites, which is led by Rtas'Vadum. The game features vehicles, weapons, and gameplay not present in previous titles of the series, as well as the addition of saved gameplay films, file sharing, and the Forge map editor; a utility which allows the player to perform modifications to multiplayer levels. Halo 3 grossed US$300 million in its first week.[1] More than one million people played Halo 3 on Xbox Live in the first twenty hours.[2] As of January 3, 2008, Halo 3 has sold 8.1 million copies, and was the best-selling video game of 2007 in the U.S. Overall, the game was very well-received by critics, with the Forge and multiplayer offerings singled out as strong features. By March 2009 more than one billion online matches had been played. A prequel to the game, Halo 3: ODST, was released worldwide on September 22, 2009. (more...)
Uh, you do know that Rosetta Stone has a large chance of being promoted for that same date, right? Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If this gets three points, then it bumps Rosetta Stone, so the matter would be moot. – iridescent 17:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you would probably find quite a lot of ill feeling if that was to occur (as Rosetta could easily have an extra one point as a "basic topic"). I would oppose such a move, anyway. The alternatively listed date of the 25th might be suitable, or even the day before/after the sequel is released (after all, the 14th is only there as a connection which could be argued basically serves as an advert for the release date of a computer game.) Bob talk 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

well the situation is similar to a LOST related article on LOST finale. but it would be ok if its a day after i suppose. -- Ashish-g55 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

+1 for women

As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/News and notes this story, I am wondering if we should add 1 diversity point for biographical articles about women.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

List of biographical FAs about non-fictional female humans
  • Support Getting articles on the main page often motivates people to write FAs, so this seems like a good way to motivate people. Or perhaps we could just deduct one point from biographies about dead, white men, since we want to foster all sorts of underrepresented groups! :) Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain that is so. The underrepresented categories have remained underrepresented; I don't think any have ever graduated, despite the likelihood that any article in one of those categories would probably stroll through TFA/R, with the underrepresentation point probably being joined by main page representation point(s), plus Raul tends to grab then quickly anyway. That incentive really isn't working, why would this?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment as far as I can see, the proposal should really only extend specifically to female biographies, as opposed to "female topics", as that would probably be misinterpreted/abused. A problem with the proposal could be that once "positive discrimination" is implemented for female biographies, other neglected topics and areas would be justified in stating that they should be entitled to extra points as well. (I hope that doesn't sound a bit Daily Mail!) Would it be possible to run a trial of the proposal for a month or so to see if it works in practice? Bob talk 23:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for female biographies. Lumos3 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for non-fictional female humans. It's certainly an under-represented topic at FA, and discounting actresses leaves us with very, very few. When was the last request for a non-fictional human female? The last TFA I can recall was the lesbian author who caused a uproar on T:MP and the one before that is Kirsten Dunst, which received insane amounts of vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Alternate proposal - rather than singling out one supposed bias I'd rather see a more broadly based approach. Female biographies are under-represented at TFA. I would imagine that biographies on non-white, non-straight non-Europeans/Americans are under-represented as well. So why not use the existing system that already deducts points for similar articles and make "straight white European/American males" subject to the "similar article" deduction? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Very well. So that there is language to work with, I deem the proposal to add under "Diversity" a second bullet point: "The article is a biography of a living or historical woman (maximum from this category 2 points)" By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have presently at FAC Princess Charlotte of Wales, who would qualify.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony, it is just a way of saying that you can get either or both diversity point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Does it limit us if say we have a diversity point in the future for something like LGBT subjects? Why not say explicitly that this diversity point does not impinge on the other type. Describing it as a max is confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, how is this? I am taking the opportunity to rewrite (without changing the effect) the whole diversity section:


Diversity: One point each for

  • Article is listed in a category at WP:FA with fifty or fewer members .[4]
  • Article is a biographical article about a living or historical woman.

That should do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the widespread support, I will modify the instructions Sunday night unless there are significant objections by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Are You The Cow Of Pain?, it is not necessary or helpful to single out women, when so many groups are underrepresented, and I don't see that this alternate addresses that. This proposal can't lead good places, as other groups will want same. We should get it right the first time, and avoid singling out women only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Positive bias is still bias. Resolute 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Absolutely not. As per SandyG, this change won't lead to anywhere good. Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm with Sandy and Malleus. Why is such a measure even necessary? If people believe there is a lack of women TFAs (or non-Anglo TFAs, or non-video game TFAs, etc.), then they should simply nominate them. One extra point wouldn't make much of a difference if the topic is historically significant, underrepresented, and/or otherwise notable. Heck, Flocke made TFA earlier this year simply because I nominated her, and she's a freaking bear. María (habla conmigo) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • My view in general is that anyone believes that there aren't enough FAs on topic X then they ought to get off their arses and write some, not complain that others don't. And before anyone accuses me of being biased against women again, I'll just point out that I've recently been helping User:Rlevse get Grace Sherwood to GAN and I'm hoping to do at least the same for Frances Lennon. The only thing I'm biased against is bias itself, even when it's proposed with the best of intentions. Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per my earlier objection/alternate proposal. Modify the existing point system instead of adding to it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nafaanra language

This is the one language article that has not been a TFA, but I don't know how to request an article because this is the first time I ever realized it was possible... How would one go about requesting an article?--64.57.206.109 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi folks, I'm planning on nominating International Space Station for TFA on 23 October soon, and thought I'd best just swing by here in advance and check my points are correct and my blurb is OK:

A planform view of the ISS backdropped by the limb of the Earth. In view are the station's four large, gold-coloured solar array wings, two on either side of the station, mounted to a central truss structure. Further along the truss are six large, white radiators, three next to each pair of arrays. In between the solar arrays and radiators is a cluster of pressurised modules arranged in an elongated T shape, also attached to the truss. A set of blue solar arrays are mounted to the module at the aft end of the cluster.

The International Space Station is an internationally developed research facility currently being assembled in low Earth orbit. On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled for completion by late 2011. The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2015, and likely 2020. With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, and is by far the largest artificial satellite that has ever orbited Earth. The station serves as a research laboratory that has a microgravity environment in which crews conduct experiments and observations in various biological, chemical and physical sciences. The ISS is operated by Expedition crews of 6 astronauts and cosmonauts, with the station programme maintaining an uninterrupted human presence in space since the launch of Expedition 1 on 31 October 2000, a total of 24 years and 57 days, taking the record for the longest unbroken human presence in space from the Mir programme today, 23 October 2010. The ISS project began in 1994 with the Shuttle-Mir programme, and the first module of the station, Zarya, was launched in 1998 by Russia. Assembly continues, as pressurised modules and other components are launched by American space shuttles, Russian Proton rockets and Russian Soyuz rockets. The station currently consists of 14 pressurised modules and an extensive integrated truss structure. (more...)

As for points, I make a total of six eight:

  • Date relevant to article topic (date the ISS programme takes the record for the longest continuous human presence in space from Mir): 1
  • Vital article: 2 4
  • Subject underrepresented at WP:FA (engineering and technology): 1
  • No spaceflight-related article this year: 2

Any thoughts? Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Experiments in ... astronomy and meteorology" sounds a bit odd to me, as does "biology, human biology" - biology and medicine, biology and physiology? The other omission is the number of people - it seems odd to specify there's 14 modules but not say a six-person crew or a total of X many visitors. (I'm not saying we need all of those, but a number of people in some way would be nice). Perhaps also add "today, October 23" to avoid confusion for people seeing it outside UTC? The date isn't usually specifically referenced, and isn't obvious on the mainpage unless you look at the lower right.
Otherwise, looks good to me! Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Vital articles are now 4 pts.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments folks, how's that looking? Colds7ream (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for October 29

Hi there. I know that you guys must be thinking "WHAT?!" because of some of my TFA requests, but just here me out on this. I have an idea for this date and would like to put it up to make sure the votes are in order (PS this is for when "Moors Murders" either gets promoted or gets the boot):

Ralph Bakshi, the director of Fritz the Cat.

Fritz the Cat is a 1972 American animated film written and directed by Ralph Bakshi as his feature film debut. Based on the comic strip of the same name by Robert Crumb, the film was the first animated feature film to receive an X rating in the United States. It focuses on Fritz (voiced by Skip Hinnant), an anthropomorphic feline in mid-1960s New York City who explores the ideals of hedonism and sociopolitical consciousness. The film is a satire focusing on American college life of the era, race relations, the free love movement, and left- and right-wing politics. Fritz the Cat was the most successful independent animated feature of all time, grossing over $100 million worldwide. The film had a troubled production history and controversial release. Creator Robert Crumb is known to have had disagreements with the filmmakers, claiming in interviews that his first wife signed over the film rights to the characters, and that he did not approve the production. Crumb was also critical of the film's approach to his material. Fritz the Cat was controversial for its rating and content, which viewers at the time found to be offensive. (more...)
I don't think you get the date relevance point. If you read the discussion above about date relevance, you will see Raul's not pleased about tangential date relevance points. I know, i know, TLDR, but you might want to take a look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Wehwalt. There is a date connection, but it's not relevant enough to get the point. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Point changes

The above topic reminded me of something I've been meaning to bring up here. I'd like to make two changes to how points are allotted, but I wanted to hear everyone's opinions before doing so.

Change #1: We're getting a lot of nominations for articles with extremely tenuous date connections. I'd like to either restrict this practice (that is, to restrict date connection points for dates that are actually meaningful to the topic of the article), and/or cut down on the points afforded for date connections. (Perhaps 1 point for a 10 year anniversary, 2 points for 50 year anniversary, and 3 points for 100 year anniversaries, or something like that)

Change #2: We don't get many nominations here for articles that important. So I'd like to substantially increase the point values for importance. Specifically, I'm thinking about doubling them (to 2, 4, and 6) or maybe tripling them (to 3, 6, and 9).

Thoughts? Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle, wording would need to be worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please define important operationally.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Quite. Articles that are important to whom? Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That's defined in the "Importance" section at the top of the page - basic subject matter, vital articles, and core topics. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
How do we draw the line on date connection? It is easier to let people have the point than to argue about it ... another method is to eliminate the point for date connection entirely, still keeping the multiples of 10 or 25.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
How do we draw the line on date connection? - I'm open to suggestions. One idea is that if the date isn't mention in the blurb and/or the article's lead paragraphs, it doesn't get the date connection points. Raul654 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For the first change, I'd support being more strict on the date connections rather than cut the number of points. In my opinion, if the date isn't in the blurb that we are proposing for the main page, then the article doesn't get the points. If the date isn't important enough to be mentioned there, then does it really warrant the extra points?
For the second change, I'm fine with either doubling or tripling the points for importance. TonyTheTiger is right, though, we need more guidance for the "basic subject matter" (1 pt) category. What's basic subject matter to a 12-year-old in Texas may not be to a 12-year-old in the UK (or even in Louisiana, which is right next door). Karanacs (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Karanacs, then we will see blurbs written on purpose with the date in it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I think it's our job as !voters to point out when the date doesn't make sense. I was originally going to propose if it wasn't in the lead, but the blurb is generally fewer words, and much more obvious if something is jammed in there that is not important. Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
We've discussed this before, but perhaps we could say instead of the 12 year old schtick, that the subject matter is high or top importance to a Wikiproject.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to throw stones, but just because Wikiproject Pokemon rates Bulbasaur as being an extremely important article doesn't make it so ;). Raul654 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well, we could restrict it to academic subjects.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You're overlooking the fact that just because an article is of top importance to a wikiproject (be that article academic or otherwise) does not mean it is of top-importance to the general public. Wikiproject Yemen considers Imams of Yemen a top-priority article, but that doesn't mean that people outside that project do. Here are a few more examples I found with a trivial amount of effort: Matter of Britain, Frashokereti, Rug hooking. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
And then we'll see editors fighting over their WP article assessments :) We keep going round and round on these sticky points, because editors have tried to game them, but we do need to work this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Are the tenuous date requests appearing for all multiples (e.g. Decennial, Semi-centennial, etc.) or solely/largely the single year multiples? If the latter is the case, would tweaking "Date relevant to article topic" to something like "Date genuinely significant to article topic" suffice? Ultimately, any "solution" will be open to gaming, so the best approach, I think, is merely to find a wording that allows !voters some teeth for rejecting tenuous dates. In Sholes and Glidden typewriter, for example, the patent date (June 23, 1868) is "relevant", but not significant (any idiot can get a patent; the existence of a patent doesn't mean it is valid, enforceable, etc. nor is it a license or necessity to further development or production). Revised wording would hopefully force, assuming vigilant !voters, selection of a superior dates. Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Timing points are not routinely awarded. They are awarded for birth date, death date, or for a major event in the subject's existence. It is expected, but not mandatory, that the date and the event would be mentioned in the blurb. The nominator has the burden of seeking consensus, in any dispute, that his claim of timing points is correct."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help to have some clarity on what exactly TFAR is trying to achieve, as it seems very muddled to me. Why, for instance is it considered important that older FAs have precedence? Why is it considered that a first nomination is more important than a second? Is it to encourage editors, or to improve the relevance of the main page TFA? Right now it seems to do neither particularly well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
But I can think of cases where the date would not be in the article; suppose I wanted to nominate Tourette syndrome (no, don't suppose that :) for Tourette Syndrome Awareness month (May), to coincide with a major TS awareness event during that month? The problem now is that we hhave too many nominations tied to very tenuous dates, and TFAs are not chosen only based on ddates-- they're just getting too many points. Reducing the points, as Raul suggests, may fix tthat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The great majority, though, are single point claims. We cannot reduce to less than one, surely?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't zero less than one? Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In some universes, yes. However, I don't think we're talking about eliminating that single point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum said: "Perhaps it might help to have some clarity on what exactly TFAR is trying to achieve, as it seems very muddled to me." -- I'll take a crack at answering this. TFAR exists because lots of people want to make requests for which articles should be featured on such-and-such a date, and I don't want to be overwhelmed with such requests. So I created this page as a central clearing house for them, and as a way for me and the community to pare them down to a mangablable number. To do this, we have to have some basis of comparison, to say that one request is more worthy than another. That's the purpose the point system serves -- give priority to certain requests over others.

Why are points awarded for certain requests? It's a value judgement - that are certain traits that we have deemed to make one request more desirable to fulfill than another. If you helped write it and you've never had an FA on the main page, then it's "fair" that you should be more likely to have your request fulfilled. If an article has been an FA a long time and I haven't yet scheduled it, then it should probably get priority over newer articles. Etc etc. There's no master formula to it -- just certain traits we think should be used to decide which requests are "better" than others. Raul654 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see fewer points given for dates. A 100-year anniversary, for example, really is significant, and reducing the points would risk it being under-valued. I'm also concerned about increasing the value of core topics, basic subject matter etc, when it's not clear how those are decided either. There are some odd subjects listed as vital topics, for example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
My preferred solution here is not to reduce the number of points given for anniversaries but to make them harder to claim by requiring that dates be more closely connected with the subject of the article. Reducing the points given for anniversaries is definitely a less-savory option, but it's on the table if the first approach doesn't work.
Regarding importance - I looked over Wikipedia:Vital_articles and you're right that there are some odd choices there (Shitao and Jābir ibn Hayyān are included there and IMO shouldn't) but those are definitely in the minority; on the whole, I think it's a good starting point for drawing up a master list for articles that we think are important and deserve higher priority in scheduling. If you or someone else want to suggest some additional sources we can use for deciding important/vital articles, I'm all ears. Raul654 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the idea is to reward articles of importance and get them onto the main page. I don't see any trouble with making a vital article +3 and a core topic +5. As for the basic subject mater article, that has been the source of considerable argument. One alternative that was discussed I think i 2008 was to substitute for basic subject matter a plus one for any article which has 20 foreign language equivalents. It is not a perfect idea, but at least it is a "bright line". As for the quirks in VA, well, we just had Rosetta Stone go over and become a VA to get the points (I believe deservedly). If someone thinks strongly that a nominee should not be a VA, fair game to go over and see if they can get it delisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
One alternative that was discussed I think i 2008 was to substitute for basic subject matter a plus one for any article which has 20 foreign language equivalents - I like this idea. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a good idea, and it would be a hard one for anyone to "game" effectively. Do you propose that this addresses "basic subject matter" or how truly "vital" an article is (or neither, or both?) Captmondo (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so taking into account the above feedback, here are the changes for importance points:

Importance

  • Basic subject matter: 2[1] point
  • Vital article: 4 points
  • Core topic: 6 points

[1] Where basic subject matter is an article which has 20 foreign language equivalents.

I'm not sure how to re-word the anniversaries section to reduce tenuous date connection requests. I'm open to ideas. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By vital article, are you referring to the level 3 (top 1000)? As for tenuous anniversaries, maybe something like 2/4/6 points for a 10x/25x/100x anniversary of an event that most defines the subject of the article, and half that for events that have a more tenuous links - of which I would include birth date. Resolute 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'd replace the terminology "basic subject matter" with "widely covered subjects" or something similar, as I'd hardly consider David Beckham a basic subject. but I do like the 20 language concept. Resolute 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"Widely covered" sounds fine to me. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the name change is appropriate. Raul has stated in the past that Level 4 is acceptable for VA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Given how America-centric level 4 is, I'm not a big fan of that, actually. Resolute 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if I specify the number of articles I want at each level and we can figure out what list(s) best match those criteria. For "Core topics" (6 points), I thinking of the 3000 to 5000 must-have articles for anything that deigns to call itself an encyclopedia. For "vital articles", I am thinking along the lines of 10,000 or 20,0000 articles that are not quite core topics, but the next-most important articles to have in an encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've partially implemented the changes (doubling the point value and changing "basic subject matter" to "widely covered") per above discussion. I'm still open to ideas for reforming "Core topics" and "vital articles" to include substantially more articles then they currently do (see my above comment), and to tweaking the date-specific points to make them more relavant. Raul654 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could expand on your thoughts on that one, with some examples, perhaps relating to the discussions we have had in the last few days on this point (the birthday of the Asian pop star, the anniversary of the announcement of the video game which was never released). If you give us a bit of guidance on this point, we can both apply it and point to it when there are objections.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, two points which I immediately see will come up:
  • It should be clarified whether Simple English counts as a language for "Widely Covered".
  • It should be made clear that you can't claim both widely covered and vital article/core topic (unless you want it that way, Raul).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
For simplicity's sake, let's say that Simple counts. (Note that the 20 number is totally arbitrary and we can always change it later if it becomes an issue.)
Widely covered and vital articles and core articles are mutually exclusive. If an article happens to be more than one of these, it gets importance points for the higher of the two. Raul654 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I've made that clear in the instructions, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Third change

Also, now that I look carefully, I think there's one more change I'd like to make. It's a rather small one:

On a related note, I'm still genuinely stumped as to why the non-specific date request slot is sitting empty for days at a time. Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of editors aren't aware of that, and so only come here when they have a date connection to another article. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect in quite a lot of cases people have a date in mind, even if it's not significant enough to warrant points—an anniversary of some kind, the day on which something related is due to open/close, or even just a day when the author knows they'll be available to clean up vandalism and fix errors—so don't think in terms of "any day would be fine". – iridescent 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought--move it to the top of the page?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reformation Sunday

Reformation Sunday (October 31) is a little over a month away and DYK has been collecting themed hooks for several weeks. As a result, it is probably time to start pondering appropriately themed featured articles for the date. A check of suggestions from last year shows that most have already been scheduled. Possible candidate I spotted from a scan of current FAs are Cock Lane ghost and the horror films Bride of Frankenstein, The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Witchfinder General (film). Are there any other good candidates? --Allen3 talk 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on this. Some holidays are genuinely global, but Halloween has virtually no cultural significance outside North America, Ireland and a few parts of Britain. When we ran Halloween II and Treehouse of Horror there was a clear date relevance (release dates), but a more general "run ghost-related stuff on Halloween" would set a bad precedent, especially given Raul's recent comments about tenuous date connections; we may as well run fire-related articles ever 5 November, US articles every 4 July, Australian articles every 26 July, Christian articles every Christmas and Easter… – iridescent 17:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is a terrible idea and for a day it symbolizes a holiday in an English speaking country(ies). I don't see a problem with reflecting on Guy Fawkes Night or any other significant holiday as well. For Halloween, There is one article being requested for Oct 16 now, Oakwood Cemetery and the nominator supports having it on Halloween. Not much of a date connection but cemetery...Halloween.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Still opposed, especially if DYK are planning to cluster-bomb the main page with Halloween-related hooks as well. Wikipedia has a hard enough time fighting off allegations of a US bias on the main page (just read Talk:Main Page on pretty much any given day). April Fools is global enough that most people "get it"; most Australians, Europeans etc either know just enough about Halloween to resent Wikipedia giving it what they'll see as undue weight, or will take offense at the trivialization of a religiously significant day on the Catholic calendar. – iridescent 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess the thing is, you can nom what you want to, but I suspect the date connection point could be ... difficult. Based on Raul's comment, the date connection point is being construed a lot more strictly. Btw, Iridescent, don't you mean 26 January for Awzie articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
They're in the southern hemisphere, so when it's January there it's July here. Or something. – iridescent 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Touchye.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did my nomination go?

After being offline for a few hours, I was surprised to see that the nomination for 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final had disappeard. I think this was just a result of some confusion and not a consensus to remove it. I've been bold and reverted the removal assuming that it was a mistake in good faith. As described in the header of WP:TFAR, the October 18 nomination should be added to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending and then added to the requests page when there's room. I've informed all editors involved of what I've done.[5] [6] [7] I hope I haven't messed anything up or stepped on any toes with my changes. I believe that what I've done is correct based on the TFAR header. --SkotyWATC 08:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cemetery had higher points than your article. Personally, I would not remove an earlier article for a later one, but I can't tell someone else what to do. You are free to readd it when there'a an opportunity. We work on the basis of points, here, and your article either had one point (lowest) or two (tied with Battle of Gonzales but would lose the tiebreaker because of fewer support votes). You can readd your article when there is a vacancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, too. I've read the instructions and, quite frankly, find them to be unnecessarily tedious. I'm not entirely sure of their utility. Either way, my ultimate goal is just to get my nom up for Oct 16. You regulars can feel free to do what you need to to get that to happen because I don't fully understand this system and don't want to cause any more unnecessary strife. upstateNYer 16:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with more graphics ability than me could prepare a "how to do it" page, with examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I was made aware of this through talk page stalking, but can someone give a brief history of how we ended up with this system? Strikes me as extremely odd that an article with no competition for a certain day is delisted. I know that in practise it has a good chance to go up on that day anyway, but all that the current system appears to do is needlessly annoy good-faith nominators (in this case a first-timer). --WFC-- 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
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. This page works now, and quite well at that. That's the short story; the longer story is ... long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It starts, "In the beginning Raul created TFA and TFA/R. And the page was without form, and void, and darkness lay on the faces of the nominators ... "--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So, if I'm not mistaking the theory, competition is universal, no matter what day you're proposing? Shouldn't it be a competition based on the day, not in general? This system doesn't make any sense to me. upstateNYer 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, for reasons already explained. As Sandy says, you really don't want to hear the long version, but we are not going back to unlimited requests. The alternative isn't "go back to the old free-for-all"; it's "no requests page and Raul picks them at random". – iridescent 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Basically, we are the filter for all the requests that would otherwise wind up on Raul's talk page. He can override us, and does regularly, but we take a lot of the pressure off his talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So, upstateNYer, I think what Wahwalt is saying is that (s)he won't take responsibility for your errant nom (and Dabomb87's subsequent removal of my nom). In fact, (s)he's reverted the changes I made to put things back in order. I think the normal protocol would have been to add it to the pending list and when the date was close enough, add it to the list of 5 requests to be discussed. That hasn't happend and Wahwalt's not going to allow me to fix it. I guess if you or Dabomb87 want to fix it, maybe then Wahwalt won't revert it. I don't want to edit war, so I won't revert again. I likewise have the ultimate goal to just get my nom up for October 5. If no one wants to step up and fix this, I'll just wait until a slot is open again and copy/paste the previous nom and discussion into the new slot. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
UpstateNYer broke no rules in replacing your article, Skotywa. Yes, he could have waited. But I can't fault him for not waiting, it is within his rights. And it is not a question of "let", this is a community-run page (subject to Raul's authority, of course). But if I hadn't done it, someone else with experience on this page would have. Yes, please do await a vacancy, that is what people do. It is not dog eat dog here.--Wehwalt (talk)
Obviously that's not what people do. However, that's what I'm expected to do, so I will do it (again). I wish upstateNYer good luck with his nom. I hope it ends up on the main page on October 18th. I'll try again for the earlier October 5th date if a vacancy becomes available. --SkotyWATC 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Bummer. I meant to add a support vote for the Open Cup article. Hopefully a date will come up sooner or later and good luck to the other nom. Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Skotywa, you do yourself no favors with your insinuations that others are not following the rules, that you are thoroughly familiar with the practices of this page although I've been here two years and I don't recall ever seeing you here before, and that you are being treated in a special, negative way that others are not. We apply the rules neutrally, and our own articles are subject to identical scrutiny. I've had articles bumped several times over the years, you just shrug and nom again if you feel like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to make enemies here. My comments were too pointy, I see that now. It stems from my confusion/annoyance with what appears to be a lack of organization/order to this request process. You are correct that I have not contributed here before, but I'm a rational human being trying to use my brain by reading, thinking about, and understanding the directions and following them. The confusion starts with the existence of the pending list which appeared to me (the newbie) to be a "holding pen" for future nominations. When a vacancy becomes available, the top item on the list is migrated into an official nomination by the nominator. However, when I read the last paragraph of the instructions again, and your comments above about "rights" and "rules", I can see where you're coming from. The pending list actually is more of an optional courtesy that nominators can extend to other nominators to avoid stomping on each others noms and forcing points to overrule the fact that nominations are for different dates. As you explained, nominators have a "right" to not use the pending list, and there is no "rule" to enforce its use. Therefore upstateNYer indeed broke no rules with his nom that stamped out mine. The only point I'll disagree with you on is that this is indeed a dog-eat-dog system as it currently works. However, it seems like with a few tweaks to the last paragraph of the instructions, this could easily be remedied and the usage of the pending list could be clarified. Once that's done, the point system becomes significant when there are nominations for the same date, rather than stamping out valid nominations for different dates. To help address this, I'd like to try suggesting some possible new wording for the instructions if the regular editors here are open to it. The process would remain essentially unchanged (5+1 noms) but the pending list's role would be more formalized. --SkotyWATC 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens if no spots open up by the time the article is requested to be on the Main Page. E.g., you want to nominate an article for October 4, but between now (or any day between now and the 4th) and Oct 4, no spots open up? upstateNYer 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well ... you don't get to nominate it for that date. You either look to another date, or sometimes Raul will have noticed it and it runs anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What's even more difficult is that it is often hard to predict when Raul will schedule dates. Sometimes he schedules an article hours before it appears on the main page; sometimes he schedules 2-3 weeks at once. Waiting until a spot opens up is then risky, because the date you are looking for may now be scheduled for something else. I'll point out right now that the non-specific date spot is open at the moment <nudge, nudge>. Karanacs (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudge. I've posted the nom again. How often are 2-3 weeks scheduled at once? That's probably the biggest complication then. I still think the process could benefit (most of the time) from formalizing the pending list's role. --SkotyWATC 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to schedule a bunch today or tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's responded to my offer to suggest a way to reword the instructions that would help formalize the pending list. I don't know if that means nobody's interested in a change there, or that I should go ahead. I am not a regular contributor here, so I recognize that I'm an outsider to this process. However, as a newcomer, I've shared my observations/experiences above and want to suggest ways to make things better. Here is the recommended change to the last paragraph of the instructions:

  • Current wording: It is helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), up for discussion on the talk page pending template up to 90 days before the requested date; requestors should return to move the request to this page during the 30-day timeframe if the article has enough points to replace another article.
  • Proposed wording: It is recommended to add the request, with the estimated point score (see below), to the talk page pending template up to 90 days before the requested date; requestors should return to move the request to this page during the 30-day timeframe if there is an open spot or if the article has enough points to replace another article. Please give nominations at the top of the pending list at least 24 hours to migrate their nomination before jumping ahead.

This probably still needs a lot of work, but I think some clarification along these lines would go a long way to elminating the "dog eat dog" process that currently exists. Again, I recognize that I'm a newcomer and an outsider to this process, so my opinion doesn't count for much and I apologize for my particularly pointy comments above. --SkotyWATC 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't see it. The "pending" box is very much an informal heads-up, which nobody is obliged to pay the slightest attention to; it's there to discourage people from starting endless "I intend to nominate Foo on such-and-such-a-date" threads on this page. It's explicitly not a "holding pen" or extended queue. While it may not seem obvious, there is a reason there's so much resistance to the idea of an "extended queue"; before that "only 5 at a time" rule was introduced, the TFA requests page looked like this, and nobody wants to go back to that. – iridescent 16:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Iridescent. This process is not very dog eat dog, few articles are nominated here and fail to appear, if not actually on the date requested. Raul often runs replaced articles, even if perhaps a bit earlier or later than anticipated. I once calculated that about 85 percent of nominated articles appear within the year.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm willing to accept that what happened to me was more of an anomaly which usually doesn't happen. In the end, the article I nominated was featured on the main page (even though it wasn't the date I was originally going for). I wouldn't want to see this process go back to the way it was before either. The "only 5 full nominations at a time" rule makes perfect sense and I'm not proposing to change that. Fear of formalizing the role of the pending list seems founded on previous experiences, so if that can't be accomplished without repeating history, then things shouldn't change. Since I'm not a regular contributor here, I'll leave it to you folks to make that determination. Thanks for hearing me out. --SkotyWATC 17:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TFAs should meet current standards

I've seen a few recent requests where the articles suggested did not meet current FA standards (the main problem is usually citation deficiencies, but there were also some that had MOS errors, prose problems, and outdated information). Should add a note to the instructions reminding nominators to check that the article they're suggesting for TFA meets the current FA standards? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea; you might want to also suggest that questionable articles can be nominated at WP:FAR to seek improvement. –Grondemar 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I agree. Especially just read through it once and fix or recognize the basic stuff, like citations. Are such nominations usually removed as "quick-fail"?--NortyNort (Holla) 03:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't always the case, but there does seem to be a movement in that direction. We want to show the public one of our top level articles up to today's standards, not the standard of five years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to some kind of "if you were not involved in the writing of the article, please contact the primary contributors or discuss the matter on the article talk page prior to nomination" rule. A lot of the time, if an FA hasn't been suggested for TFA by the author(s) it's because they have a concern about it. (Either "the article doesn't really meet current standards but we haven't had time to fix it", or "this is a potentially sensitive topic and we're not in a position to keep it clean on the day".) TFAR seems to be getting a lot of driveby nominations lately from people who don't appear to have considered the potential issues with the articles they're nominating, or even notified (let alone consulted) anyone involved with the writing or maintenance of the articles. – iridescent 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that too. And when people nominate their own articles, they are almost always up to snuff. I would suggest adding both that they make sure the prinicipal editor is cool with it and also that the article is generally up to today's standards, especially as regards citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
As a thought, would it be worth making a {{TFAR nomination}} template to be added to the article's talkpage when something's proposed here, in the same way that {{FAC}} is added to talkpages when something's proposed at FAC? That way it would notify those people with enough of an interest in the article to have it watchlisted. Removing the template once the request is either successful or removed could presumably be bottified reasonably easily. – iridescent 13:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess, though I'd rather have a person add it to the talk page as some people have their watchlist seat to ignore bot edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the FAC nominators's pre-approval should be required in order to nominate an article for TFA, for multiple reasons:
  1. FAC nominators, while they have a strong interest in general in maintaining the quality of the articles they nominated, do not WP:OWN them; it's not appropriate to give them a unilateral veto over whether the article can be nominated here.
  2. Many FAC nominators have not been active for a long period of time. If their pre-consent is required to nominate an article, it will effectively prevent any of these articles from ever being nominated here.
  3. Raul doesn't ask each FAC nominator prior to scheduling articles for the main page if they consent to have it on the Main Page. Requiring it for TFA would be inconsistent.
Don't get me wrong; I'm in favor of adding to the instructions that articles should be checked for quality prior to being nominated for the Main Page, and sent to WP:FAR if necessary. I'm also in favor of an article talk page notification template being added by the nominator (and removed by Raul when he schedules the article, I guess?), and would be in favor of requiring notification of the FAC nominator when their article is nominated for TFA. However, I'm not in favor of requiring their pre-consent—if they object for whatever reason they can oppose the article here; my experience has been the opinions of the FAC nominators are already given due deference in these debates. The current system works; while some tweaks would be helpful, I don't think requiring pre-consent is either appropriate, consistent, or helpful to the process. –Grondemar 23:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Grondemar (talk · contribs), NortyNort (talk · contribs), and Wehwalt (talk · contribs). In addition, this latest proposal directly above by Grondemar (talk · contribs), about adding to the instructions that "articles should be checked for quality prior to being nominated for the Main Page, and sent to WP:FAR if necessary". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problematic articles are the unilateral Raul picks. When I asked him, he said he picks only compliant FAs. I disagree obviously, as often would fail even late 2007 early 2008 standards. Most community requests do get the odd objection for older articles that haven't been renovated YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested before Raul should schedule say a minimum of 7-10 days ahead. This way there is sufficient time for discussion / early FAR and emergency replacement as necessary before an article hits the main page, or even TFA tomorrow. That leaves it up to the community to notice problems and if they fail, I don't think Raul can be blamed. This may make it more difficult when it comes to requests but since under this proposal we accept sometimes the FAs may be changed a few days before as necessary it shouldn't IMHO be too bad. Call them tentative TFA if you want. It shouldn't in theory create much more work in the long run for Raul, once it's up to speed it's still one a day again or if Raul prefers to do it in bursts this can obviously also be accomodated just e.g. 15-8 days ahead. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat against this idea. For one thing Raul is a volunteer like the rest of us, but more importantly how can a nominator possibly know whether an article would pass muster with the growing number of "What? You've brought this here to FAC with a couple of missing links and endash where there should be an emdash?" brigade? Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should also introduce a rule that no article can be on the main page unless the nominator is in possession of all of the sources used in the article's construction. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As in physically has them at hand? I can understand asking that the nominator has looked at all the sources, or can get access to them given a reasonable amount of time, but some articles have dozens if not hundreds of sources. I know that for some articles I've had to trek down to my local university library to access a source, as they're in-library use only - old sources, rare sources, expensive sources...I think I understand why such a rule would be beneficial, but in some cases it's unfortunately just not achievable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I was being ironic in referring to a recent discussion elsewhere in which that suggestion was made for FAC nominators, which I found so tedious that I've blanked it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well last year there was an article I wrote on a current sportsman that was unilaterally scheduled half a day before it was due and by I time I logged in again it was already on; I hadn't added the last few months of the guy's career yet YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible replacement

Animaniacs is probably going to get rejected since it has gotten 5 votes, 80% of them being oppose. I'm not going to replace it myself because the guidelines don't make it clear whether it's okay to remove non-specific-date-slot nominations before their 7 days are up. Would something like this work as a possible replacement?

Jenna Jameson is an American entrepreneur and former pornographic star, who has been called the world's most famous adult-entertainment performer and "The Queen of Porn." She started acting in erotic videos in 1993 after having worked as a stripper and glamour model. By 1996, she had won the "top newcomer" award from each of the three major adult movie organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult video awards, and has been inducted into both the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) and Adult Video News (AVN) Halls of Fame. She is the founder of the adult entertainment company ClubJenna, is the author of the autobiography How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale, and played the female lead character in the 2008 horror-comedy film Zombie Strippers. (more….)
Six points: Two points for age (was promoted in 2007), two for being widely covered, and two for main page representation (I don't think there are any other FA's, let alone TFA's, about porn stars).

It certainly has a lot of points, and is also a female biography (which several editors have argued that we need more of on TFA). However, I also seem to remember reading that Jenna Jameson was on an unofficial "black list" of some kind. Is the "black list" still in effect? An argument could be made, however, that having a TFA black list would be counter to WP: NOTCENSOR. In the meantime, I'm just going to leave Animaniacs up there, but if anyone else wants to replace it with the above suggestion, they can do so. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the instructions so as to address this point, it was the clear intent that it be subject to the same rules as other articles. As for Jenna, I'm not touching this one, it's way above my pay grade.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, Stonemason89 "the king of controversy". I think it's fairly obvious why Raul has been keeping this on his blacklist, I imagine following the reaction to the 2006 TFA of History of erotic depictions. Bob talk 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
We actually had that as a TFA? LOL! Stonemason89 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I won't put this up there; I think if Raul wants to show it, he should schedule it himself. Sorry, Jenna. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like they had a rough TFA. Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Wonder how they would have reacted if penis was the TFA....It probably would end up being mentioned on Fox News. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There were definitely some choice quotes on that talk page the day it was TFA. It had me laughing for awhile. Also, a ridiculous amount of vandalism as well. I imagine Jenna would be similar. She is one of thee most famous.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that it's still an FA tbh. It reads more like a random collection of factoids than an biography. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Raul has said before he has an unofficial list of FAs he doesn't plan to feature on the main page. I don't think he says what they are. FWIW File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg was also not featured on the main page (TFP largely goes by promotion date) after some discussion Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Raul has said (can't remember where) that it's really only two: this one and (while it was featured) Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1910 Cuba hurricane

There was some reference in a recent (failed) TFA request to the fact that someone was planning to nominate this centenary article for a slot in October - can anyone remember who was apparently going to be doing that? It's not in the "forthcoming requests" box above. BencherliteTalk 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article, and it would be a shame to miss the centennial entirely. I'd say nominate it for sometime this month. Jonathunder (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

5 November

Since this will be the first year that Gunpowder Plot would be eligible for this date, I wondered if it was even worth bothering asking here? To be frank its the obvious choice. Other possible contenders are Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes, Ambrose Rookwood and Everard Digby. All plotters, but only the second is well known (unfortunately so, in my opinion). Parrot of Doom 09:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of high-profile article Raul altered the points system to get on the main page. At least three points, widely covered and date connection for the plot, it may have other points as well. The plotters can be used over the next few years, perhaps, though I would hate to see November 5 exclusively reserved for plot articles (one of these years, not this year, I'd like to nom California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 for the honor).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, the Gunpowder Plot would be great to see on the 5th. I suppose a bit like the earlier discussion about September 11, it would be best to alternate gunpowder plot articles so that it's not featured every year. Definitely support, though. Bob talk 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Its my intention to get all 13 up to FA/GA, I reckon there's enough material for another 2-3 FA quality articles so we won't be short of articles. I'm more inclined to see Catesby used this 5th, as few people know the name, and he was the one responsible (not Fawkes). Parrot of Doom 13:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I would encourage Gunpowder Plot for the 5th. The other articles listed could be eligible for extra points on other dates, such as the anniversaries of the birth or death of the subject. (For example, Catesby might be a good one for 8 November.) Jonathunder (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairuse on mainpage discussion

There was a discussion earlier today on mainpage talk about today's article, Ravenloft, and specifically the image that was used and later removed. Further to the earlier discussion about using the most appropriate image, what's the general rule when choosing an alternative "free use" image? It does seem that the "free use image only" policy does result in some odd choices, especially when talking about things like TV/film/games/books and so forth; it was pointed out by David Levy that it is largely based on an an ambiguous summary by Jimbo Wales. Was there ever a big discussion about it? Bob talk 16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much think we should be using non-free images in cases where no good free image exists. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
As do I, but apparently the Main Page as free-image-only zone has now become sacrosanct. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What I sense is that quite a large number of editors find this policy a bit strange - I was having a look through the archives of TFA from 2007, and there doesn't appear to be a discussion about images (although, it may be buried somewhere in the fairuse talkpage archive). I just wonder whether the "It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material" criteria could mean that a limited-size fairuse image would qualify for use as a last resort against having to resort to an image like File:Tracy Hickman 02.jpg to illustrate, for example, a game. Unlike some of the other main page components (like DYK/ITN), the subject is usually described in some detail. I suppose the image is only decorative, anyway, in most cases. Bob talk 10:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The removal of fair use images from the Main page came in response to the March 23, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution and this project's Exemption Doctrine Policy and not from a decree by Jimbo. --Allen3 talk 11:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I can see how this removal can be a response to those things, but I don't see how those things require such a change. Not having any picture for the main page featured article kinda sucks, and sometimes there just aren't any. I think starting a new discussion on this is helpful to gauge consensus. Could anyone provide a history of the issue here? Was there an RfC? Some other discussion that created consensus? Something else? Hobit (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria permits "copyrighted images...and other media files that lack a free content license" only if ten conditions are met. One of those (#9) is that "non-free content is allowed only in articles...and only in article namespace". Jonathunder (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
One does have to wonder, though, whether the main page featured article should be considered an exception in certain special circumstances (i.e. when no reasonable free alternative is available). The TFA blurb is virtually a mini article in itself and in a particularly prominent position, usually the first thing seen by readers. It's therefore arguably a very different proposition to any of the other forbidden examples. Bob talk 14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if my interpretation of what appears under article namespace is correct, specifically: "Not all pages in the article namespace are considered to be articles. The most notable exceptions are: the Main Page [followed by rest of list items]" then the Main Page would seem to be an exemption from rule #9, right? Captmondo (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you've got it backwards. The policy was worded that way expressly to apply to Main Page images. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This seems entirely unnecessary. Why re-write policy, risk infringing copyright and use a copyrighted image owned by a third party who is probably unaware of and would be less-than-thrilled to discover this use for some minor aesthetic benefit for 24 hours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Erb? Any use would be well within fair use given the size of the image and the non-profit nature of Wikimedia. I don't see how your other comments apply any differently to the main page than the rest of Wikipedia. In any case, I'll start an RfC over the weekend if no one beats me to it. I assuming having it here would be the right place? Hobit (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      An RFC, if actually opened, would be better placed at Talk:Main Page instead of this page. There are two reasons for this. First, the primary impact of adding fair use images to the TFA will occur on the Main page instead of the archives and services pages related to the FA process. Secondly, with difference of 69194 vs. 270 accounts watchlisting the two locations respectfully, Talk:Main Page will provide significantly larger visibility to the discussion. --Allen3 talk 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      Thanks, that makes sense! Hobit (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarity points

Would a castle (Tower of London) or a dam (Hoover Dam) have similarity points effect on a theater (Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)), which is a potential November 8 nominee.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If not, what about a church (St. Michael's Cathedral)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say no; they're in the same category at WP:FA but that's because "architecture" is such a catch-all. If the cathedral were in Chicago, maybe, but it's on the other side of the world. – iridescent 23:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No more than Fountain of Time affected Hoover Dam just because they are big, made of concrete, and water goes through them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Experimenting with alternate media

The above discussion got me thinking -- for a music-oriented article like L'Orfeo, would it be preferable to use a music clip instead of a picture? (I'm thinking specifically of this) Can someone please post a blurb so I can see what it would look like? (Both the wikitext and the user view) Raul654 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Poke? Anyone?
Something like this? I used the template Did You Know uses when they feature audio files. –Grondemar 06:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

L'Orfeo (SV 318), sometimes called L'Orfeo, favola in musica, is an early Baroque opera by Claudio Monteverdi, with a text by Alessandro Striggio. It is based on the Greek legend of Orpheus, and tells the story of his descent to Hades and his fruitless attempt to bring his dead bride Eurydice back to the living world. Written in 1607 for a court performance during the annual Carnival at Mantua, L'Orfeo is one of the earliest music dramas still regularly performed. (more...)

I wonder if there's any way that the audio bar could somehow go underneath the image? I have messed up the formatting of this template, because it's not designed to take an image, but something could perhaps be redesigned? Bob talk 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go at this in my sandbox - it's not particularly good, really, but if it had the musical notation of the particular excerpt, it might work quite well. What do you think? It's a pity I can't get rid of the big information link in the text. Bob talk 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
...that in the 1974 BBC documentary A Passion for Churches, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman compares the appearance of the Scottish church architect Sir Ninian Comper to Colonel Sanders?

L'Orfeo (SV 318), sometimes called L'Orfeo, favola in musica, is an early Baroque opera by Claudio Monteverdi, with a text by Alessandro Striggio. It is based on the Greek legend of Orpheus, and tells the story of his descent to Hades and his fruitless attempt to bring his dead bride Eurydice back to the living world. Written in 1607 for a court performance during the annual Carnival at Mantua, L'Orfeo is one of the earliest music dramas still regularly performed. In his published score Monteverdi lists around 40 instruments to be deployed, with distinct groups of instruments used to depict particular scenes and characters. Thus strings, harpsichords and recorders represent the pastoral fields of Thrace with their nymphs and shepherds, heavy brass illustrates the underworld and its denizens. Composed at the point of transition from the Renaissance era to the Baroque, L'Orfeo employs all the resources then known within the art of music, with particularly daring use of polyphony. (more...)

That looks good ... perhaps for some operas, the image can be of the scene where the passage is played ... should have thought of that with Tosca, but clearly if we can come up with a good way of doing it for L'Orfeo, it can be adapted ... perhaps for other articles where a sound file is used, not necessarily opera, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The code's here if anybody wants to have a go at refining it as a reusable template. Bob talk 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've scheduled it for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 15, 2010. What do you guys think about using a picture along with the music (ala Bob Castle's setup) instead of the DYK template as I've scheduled it? Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Bob's approach.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This looks great! Is there any way of tracking how much the embedded file gets played? Shimgray | talk | 18:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've switched it to use the layout suggested by Bob. Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks odd to have two round blue icons stacked atop each other. How about linking "Toccata" to the file description page instead of using the "i" icon? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 17:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When I view the image from my work computer, the word "Play" appears to the right of the picture of Claudio Monteverdi, rather than below it. From my home computer, however, it looks fine, with all of the text appearing below the image. Anyway, I believe adding a "br" to the code between the image and the text would make it display correctly on my work computer, with the text all under the image. Calathan (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles that haven't yet appeared on the main page

Is there some list or category or something of FAs that haven't yet been TFA? I have the idea there is but can't seem to find it. I'm wondering what the number of FAs that haven't yet been TFA is but I don't need a perfect answer so if it could be off by 50 or something that's fine. Going by total FAs versus total number of TFAs obviously doesn't work because of demotions and repromotions Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it's at Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. It's usually nestling somewhere at the bottom of a non-TFA'd FA talk page. Bob talk 17:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Much simpler: install this code to your own user monobook.css, and you can tell just by viewing the colors on WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is also Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, which has the number of FAs that haven't been TFA at the top, and which lists all of them. User:Dabomb87 seems to maintain that page, so as long as he keeps at it, it should be accurate. Calathan (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks the cat was what I was thinking of. I checked a FA that hadn't yet been on the main page but sillyly forgot I should look at the bottom to see the cats so only looked at the top and didn't see what I was looking for in the header. BTW either list is fine for my purposes but installing the monobook isn't easier since that way I have to manually count colours or set something up to do it since I primarily want the numbers :-) (Also I use vector.) The numbers BTW are for Talk:Main Page#Two TFAs per day? which people here may be interested in. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To continue this, the line saying "Main page representation: A similar article has not been featured on the main page" probably ought to be made to pipe to Dabomb's list. I could be bold and change it, but thought it best to check. Bob talk 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not unless Dabomb confirms that he is maintaining it and will continue to do so-- I had stopped following that page because it used to be grossly wrong, but I feel better about it if Dabomb is on the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That was some weird edit conflict, and I can't decipher how to fix it-- Bob, could you refactor and restore whatever was supposed to happen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a bit of a habit of looking back at a comment, and then realising I ought to clarify something. Although Dabomb is probably keeping it up to date, would the category be a better bet? Bob talk 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix the ec; please check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would make sense to the link to the list of FAs that haven't been TFA when checking to see if a similar article hasn't been on the main page. To determine if it gets points, you would want to know what articles have been on the main page recently, not which articles haven't been on the main page. However, a link to either the category or the list maintained by Dabomb might be useful somewhere at the top of the page, so people know what articles are available to choose from. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not put it above "Featured article statistics", which is another maintained page, and one fairly recent?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been maintaining WP:FAMP for a while now, so I think it is pretty accurate. If you're looking for the actual number of FAs that have not been featured on the Main Page yet, then you're better off looking at the category, which is probably more accurate. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
RE:Calathan, that was kindof what I was suggesting, albeit in a roundabout way. How about something like this? Bob talk 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. Articles yet to be featured are listed here."

No comment on the cat or list but I agree it would be helpful to have a link either or preferably both on the TFAR page and the FA stats (the later is OT here I know) Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween FA

This thread is for suggestions and discussion of what the FA for Halloween (October 31st) should be. Please discuss. Raul654 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Well, this is my suggestion:
The story of the Cock Lane ghost attracted mass public attention in 18th-century England before being exposed as a hoax. Cock Lane is a short alleyway adjacent to London's Smithfield market, a few minutes' walk from St Paul's Cathedral, and in 1762 an apartment along the alley became the focus of attention over a reported haunting. The story centred on three people: William Kent, a usurer from Norfolk, Richard Parsons, a parish clerk, and his daughter Elizabeth. Following the death of his wife Elizabeth Lynes during childbirth, Kent had become romantically involved with her sister, Fanny. The couple were prevented by canon law from marrying, but moved to London, where they lodged at a property owned by Parsons. While there, reports were made of strange knocking sounds and ghostly apparitions. Kent also loaned Parsons a sum of money, which the latter did not repay, and Kent responded by suing him. Fanny became pregnant and the couple moved out, at which point the knocking sounds ceased, but she later died of smallpox. About 18 months later, once Kent had successfully sued Parsons for the outstanding loan, the latter claimed that his property was haunted by Fanny's ghost. (more….)

So, what do you think? Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Searching through the current list of FAs and archives of this talk page I was able to locate the following potential candidates:
Selected Halloween themed articles from prior years are Manchester Mummy (2009), Treehouse of Horror (2008), Halloween II (2007), and Night of the Living Dead (2006). As last year was a UK oddity and the previous three films/television specials, I would suggest either Grace Sherwood or the deadly mushroom. --Allen3 talk 12:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Per my previous comments on the subject, I oppose anything that doesn't have a specific connection with the October 31 date. We've spent a long time trying to shake off Wikipedia's (well-deserved) reputation for having a massive systemic bias towards the US and UK, and Halloween has virtually no significance outside North America and some parts of the British Isles. I can just about live with the April Fools thing, but I really don't want to see Wikipedia going down the "liturgical calendar" route, especially since (as I understand it) the DYK people are specifically saving up articles for the express purpose of spamming the main page on 31 October. It's a very short and slippery slope from "always run ghost articles on Halloween" to this. – iridescent 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I was in the previous discussions as well and don't oppose having a specific article for the date. It is a more notable holiday than the "bacon debut". Also, it is just one day and a notable one at that, especially in the U.S. I have no problem supporting articles for notable dates specific to English speaking countries. I also doubt a lot of bacon related articles will make DYK on during the bacon debut.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in having a "spooky" themed FA on Halloween - after all en.wikipedia is probably primarily edited by U.S./UK editors (he said without a shred of evidence, and probably offending some other people - do they not have Halloween in Australasia?). I think it would be best to avoid a film this year - my preferences would either be the Cock Lane Ghost (which also wins a fictional point for its "amusing" title) or Grace Sherwood. Bob talk 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Halloween in Australia is a very recent import which has never really caught on. We have a very brief stub about the failure of Halloween to penetrate Australia. I'm not aware of any English-speaking country other than the US, Canada, Ireland and Scotland in which it has any particular significance; it's an Irish/Scottish festival which was brought to the US and Canada by Scottish and Irish settlers. In Catholic countries it's too close to All Saints Day, in Latin America it's too close to the Day of the Dead, and in England and former English colonies it falls too close to Bonfire Night (5 November) to have made much impact. – iridescent 16:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It has some impact in England as well, when I've been there close to the date, I've seen Halloween stuff at Tesco.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bob. Halloween is a huge festival for a large percentage of our readers and I see nothing wrong with a Halloween-themed article on Oct 31. So I have to ask Iridescent, would you object to an article about All Saints Day on All Saints Day on the grounds that not all our readers are Catholic? Disclaimer: I am the primary author, with a huge help from Malleus, of Grace Sherwood. To me saying there should not be Halloween-themed article on Halloween on en.wiki smacks of political correctness (let's deny the desires of most people to pacify a small number of people, even just one). Now if we were trying to do that on the Chinese Wiki, that'd be another story. And yes, DYK folks have several Halloween articles saved for Oct 31. I say let's have a theme-related TFA on all these days important to the English speaking world (even non English speaking countries for that matter): Halloween, All Saints Day, Day of the Dead, Bonfire Night, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I will add my voice to that of Bob and Rlevse. It would be one thing if iridescent had a viable alternate for the day, but opposing a themed article just for the sake of not having a themed article on a date recognized by a large portion of the English Wikipedia's community smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Allen3 talk 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again. I have no objection at all to running an All Saints Day article on All Saints Day, and I'd have no objection to running a Halloween themed article on Halloween. What you're proposing isn't a Halloween themed article—the date isn't mentioned once in the article. This is equivalent to saying that we should only run articles about Christianity on Christian festivals, only run articles on Indian topics on Diwali, only run articles on Australians on Australia Day. To my mind, this is exactly what Raul was talking about when he was complaining earlier about tenuous date connections. – iridescent 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles exist on more than dates, they also exist on themes, and the themes relate to Halloween. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I can understand Iridescent's point, and I have some sympathy with it. The Cock Lane Ghost was a notorious hoax, therefore might be better for April Fools Day, and witchcraft is an impossible crime, so Grace couldn't really have been a witch. That being said I don't have a better suggestion for Halloween, which is celebrated to a degree by English kids trick or treating (a custom I suspect they picked up from watching American TV), and there's loads of Halloween getups for them to buy in the supermarkets. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also inclined to suggest that with the hoax element, coupled with the silly name, the Cock Lane Ghost would be a more appropriate April 1st TFA. (Would it be a good idea to have a "TFA blurb vault" as a subpage of this subpage, so when something like this is written out, it isn't lost when it's replaced or rejected due to similarity and so forth?) Bob talk 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

October 31

Grace Sherwood (also known as the Witch of Pungo), was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. (more….)
Four points. 1 pt for date relevancy (Halloween), 1 pt for underepresented topic (witchcraft), 2 for no similar topic on the MP recently (witchcraft, Colonial Virginia society). I haven't nom'd something here at TFA requests before (if I did it was eons ago), so pardon me if I goofed it up or misunderstood something. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it okay if I trim some of the information on here? It's a bit long. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 02:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the point for underrepresented topic counts, but I think this is a good choice for Halloween and would support it. NW (Talk) 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You're going to hate me. Two points No underrepresented point, as this is part of History at WP:FA, which is not underrepresented. And under the discussions we have had with Raul, there is no date relevance, this is certainly an appropriate article, but Halloween is not prominently mentioned in the article. In any event, Raul said on his talk page that he is going to ask for suggestions on what to select for Halloween, so why don't we pull both Oct 31 nominations and take it there when he starts the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
      • History is so darn broad that virtually everything falls under it. When was the last time we had a TFA on an alleged witch or colonial US history? Plus our totals FAs in those areas is abyssmally low, so I'm still claiming Three Points — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The other article is the Oakwood Cemetery of Troy, NY one, which Raul654 has put up for 16 Oct, after previously having a hurricane article there: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/October_16,_2010. The English soccer club one has already been pulled from this page. So I'm wondering what's left besides Grace Sherwood. It's also unclear where this discussion of Raul's about Halloween will take place. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Eschew political correctness. Where do you draw the line? No Christmas, Hannukkah, Boxing Day, or New Year's articles next? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
(blinks) Do we have any Hanukkah articles? We'll need eight, you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you need help writing those 8 FAs for the next Hannukah, I know some people that can help. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hannukkah articles? Here are nine: Hanukkah, of course, Hanukkah music, Hanukkah menorah, Public menorah, Hanukkah gelt, Sufganiyah (donuts!), Hanukkah bush, White House Hanukkah Party, and the Hanukkah Eve wind storm of 2006 (yes, it's a real article!). Jonathunder (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of 31 October. WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR all in effect here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Points question

I want to nom Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel on November 28. It's a radio comedy show starring Chico and Groucho Marx that premiered on Nov 28, 1933. How many points would it score for "Main page representation", considering that nothing radio-related has been on the main page in the last six months, but film and TV has? Is a radio sitcom series too similar to a TV series? Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess three, although I haven't looked through the last six months to check. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Four, adding the point for age (promoted over a year ago). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Four then, subject to anything that may run before then of course.==Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, both :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about age and timing

I am looking to nominate Delrina for November 22, which was the date the company officially ceased operations and became part of Symantec in 1995.

The original Delrina article made it to the Feature status back in late 2005. It was revamped when the article came up for FA review just over a year ago. So would it qualify as two points or one under the revamped Age criteria?

In terms of timing, I see that multiple points are given to articles that hit the 10/25/50/100 anniversary mark. What about 15? TIA! Captmondo (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appeared as TFA on January 4, 2006 so it is ineligible to be nominated. In answer to your question, a FFA that achieves FA status takes the most recent date that it achieved FA status for purposes of age, because that would be the time it's been "waiting" to appear on the main page. Fifteen gets no special points, just normal date connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Very confused by this response?? An FFA is simply not eligible, even if it achieves FA again, so there is no date for "purposes of age". The only article every run twice was Obama, as part of the Obama/McCain double feature, and Raul vowed that would not be a regular thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! I am also a bit surprised to hear that an article once featured on the main page cannot be re-nominated. Given that the last time the article was posted to the main page was almost five years ago I am surprised that there is no explicit "statute of limitations" that may apply. Also, since it has undergone significant revisions since then this is something of a discouragement to people seeking to update and maintain articles to FA status if they have already been on the main page before.
Don't get me wrong, I am not seeking special dispensation — to some extent maintaining an article to FA status is its own reward — but not being able to re-nominate an article at all seems like a detrimental policy in the long-term. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the reason for the policy is because it makes no sense to give a second TFA to an article when there are still plenty of other FA's that haven't had even one TFA appearance yet. If at any time in the future we get to the point where there are no new FA's to choose from (which doesn't seem like it will be anytime soon, if ever), then changing the rule might be in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You are to be applauded for salvaging a former featured article, which has been done only about 40 times, a drop in the bucket compared to the large numbers of FFAs. Unhappily, that is how it is. If it is any consolation, I brought Gough Whitlam back to FA, well knowing that it had run six years ago and I could never see it as TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Understood, and thank you for the response. Captmondo (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nexxxxxxxt ?

I thought we gave preference to the newer nom, since the older one will have plenty of time to come back? [8] Honestly, who are these IPs and what are they worried about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If Hoxne has more supports, then they win the tiebreaker when tiebreak percentage is equal.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone should explain that Nov 16 is a long way off to that IP then. I'm tempted to add a Support to Nov 5 just because it's so goofy; right below it is a 3-pointer with only two supports! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Look at what was just left on TFA/R Sandy, it moved me to a comment, which as you know I usually don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Saw the edit summaries first and added my comment-- hate to see such behaviors taken (I don't we've seen an oppose like that before) on here. Also, in the collegial spirit of the page, it would probably be worthwhile to try to talk to that IP, but I don't know how to tell whether an IP is dynamic or static? Anyway, don't worry-- Raul rarely misses anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are being quite rude to that IP user. I don't see how you can possibly consider it a bad thing for someone to update the summary chart to accurately reflect which is the next article to be replaced based on the rules listed on the page. I also can't see what you could consider non-collegial about just maintaining the summary chart. Also, you did ask in your edit summary "why was this removed", which is probably why he decided to point out why and go ahead and update the chart at the same time. I was considering making the exact same edit to try to explain what User:TuneyLoon must have been thinking when he removed the "next to be replaced" label, except unlike the IP, I was too lazy to do so. Anyway, if you think the current rules for which is the next to be replaced are bad, then feel free to propose changes to them, but please don't disparage people for just keeping the chart up to date. (I do however agree that the oppose comments by User:Jeffwang16 are frivolous, but that has nothing to do with the IP updating the chart). Calathan (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
What? Me worry?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, I really think you need to reread the rules on the page for which is the "next to be replaced", as you just updated it incorrectly. Having a higher percentage of opposes applies before having more support votes. Again, if you don't think the current rules are good, feel free to propose changes to them. Calathan (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First time nominator

This is my first time to try and nominate an article and I am a little intimidated. Reading the project page only confused me, to be honest. I want to nominate the album Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) but I'm not sure how to go about it. Is there a working list where I place my nomination and wait for the admins to get around to fact checking and approving it or do I pick a date on a list, place my nomination and wait for the admins to get around to fact checking and approving it? Advanced thanks to the person to help me. -Red marquis (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article hasn't passed a featured article candidacy. Articles cannot be "today's featured article" without being featured. :-) Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Multiple issues there: the article isn't currently at Featured article level, but it's simultaneously listed at both WP:PR and WP:GAN, when it should only be listed at one. I suggest delisting the GA nomination, and working towards a solid peer review, with the aim of working the article up to WP:GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unusual discussion, don't think it's linked here

This.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is too quiet

Where are all the requests? Why is this page dead? Raul654 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, maybe we think our requests will be bumped too quickly -- I could throw a whole bunch of "mine" at you but they'd all be military biographies that wouldn't score many points... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. On a practical note I can nom an article for 21 December about a very interesting aviator who was as notable for his peacetime endeavours as his war work. The article probably only scores a point since it's the anniversary of his birth but was promoted less than a year ago, however I'm willing to let it take its chance as long as we don't mind having two MilHist-related articles on successive days (i.e. Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand on the 22nd)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I am working on a script so that my own bio can be posted at TFA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Thinking about nomming Theoren Fleury (1/3) and Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) (1/30). Waiting for ten-year for McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink on 12/20/11.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article statistics, FA growth over last 2 years close to 1 a day seems to mean not a lot of excess to create competition for front page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want Ian, I can move the request date. It would give me more time to get an image. Buggie111 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If that works for you, Buggie, why don't we do it? I've also submitted a longer-range nom for a pilot on 21 January (again date-related) so perhaps your revised nom could be late December or early January. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Tony, if Vezina is an 8 pointer for 12/31, would not advise Fleurry on 1/3.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm quiet because I'm planning to nom "Bring Us Together" for 1/20. It's only one point, but if successful it would be I think only the second video blurb picture, see here (note: the dates on that page are just for convenience).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Although this is already becoming superfluous to lsit each and every one of our planned FA's, I've got Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) coming up as my encore Four Award. I might wait until April, sicne I don't think Jan will be such a quick solution Buggie111 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


The non-specific date request slot has been sitting empty for about a week, and this isn't the first time. That's the most useful slot on the this page for me (and consequently, the one that gets to the main page fastest.) Why doesn't anyone use it? Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of nomming Flower Drum Song for the slot, once the FAC closes, I'd guess later in the week. I do not want to be greedy though and I have a nomination in mind for January 20.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucked...

I just realised we are about to exit the international year of biodiversity, which of course sank like a lead balloon in the wonderful media environment we live in :(

I'd meant to nominate a few bio articles as a last flurry before 2010 closed out but have been busy with Xmas.... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What news media? I thought it was all about entertainment...  :-P
Seriously, though, at least the Lemur article made it on before the year was up. They at least stand as flag-ship species for the rest of Madagascar's rich (and unique) biodiversity. So it wasn't a total loss, I guess... – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I chose a different class and continent - and it's a big family too --> Antbird Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if it means much, but I added my support. Thanks for the excellent nom. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference sales was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference 1milxbox was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_11&oldid=1142514380"