Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Diversity/Underrepresentation points for a "miscellaneous or unclassifiable topic"

I'm considering nominating Alice Ayres for April, but have no idea what the points total would be. She definitely gets two points on either 24 or 26 April for the 125th anniversary of her death (fatally injured on the 24th, life pronounced extinct on the 26th), but I've no idea how to calculate diversity and underrepresentation – there literally is no similar article I can think of on Wikipedia. In the inexplicable absence of "People who became the subject of personality cults among early socialists, feminists and white-supremacists, after having fallen out of a window" as a category at WP:FA, she's listed in the catch-all "History" section (maybe sometime someone could explain why the battles, royalty and hurricanes aren't history...) but it has no relationship to any other article in that section; depending on how one interprets the criteria, she could have anything from -1 to +5 points. Can someone sort out now what the points total will be, to save squabbling nearer the time? – iridescent 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since every FA is unique in some way, we go strictly by the categories at WP:FA for determining underrepresentation. For purposes of diversity, we look to what the subject of the article is best known for, if a person, usually his or her profession (or what made him notable). I would have to look more closely at Ayres to give you a point determination, and as there are two months of undetermined TFA's between now and then, it would be entirely tentative. I don't think it likely there have been similar articles recently, which would put it in the range 0f four points.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Baltimore Steam Packet Company ("Old Bay Line") for March 18?

I was going to nom this for March 18, the 170th anniversary of the steamship line's founding on March 18, 1840, but I see Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov beat me to it. Old Bay Line merits 4 points, but since Rimsky-Kersakov already has two supports, I think it best to float the replacement here first (pardon the pun)!  JGHowes  talk 04:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How are you calculating the points, first of all?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I figure Age, 1 pt (promoted 4 July 2008) + Timing, 2 pts (decennial anniversary) + Importance, 1 pt = 4.  JGHowes  talk 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We really don't have an "importance" category, so I guess three points?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Huh? importance is listed by Raul as one of the 6 criteria at TFAR, Calculating points, as follows,
• Basic subject matter: 1 point
• Vital article: 2 points
• Core topic: 3 points  JGHowes  talk 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. And the basic subject matter is defined as "Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old using Wikipedia for a school project." It is not likely that a 12 year old would be writing a school paper on a steamship line. See the many archived discussions about similar points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Wehwalt, I missed that fn 2 definition. So, 3 points it is.  JGHowes  talk 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So anyway, you can add your request. Then Rimsky-Korsakov would be removed if an article comes along with a higher point value, no matter what the normal "next to be replaced" would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day

I think that for March 17 (St Patrick's Day) we should have an Irish FA, and have nominated Tom Crean (explorer). It's an interesting article which has been featured since Nov. 2008. EamonnPKeane (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of an Irish TFA for St Patrick's Day and Tom Crean sounds like a good choice. The only other one that stood out for me as being appropriate was Drapier's Letters. Perhaps that could be TFA next year, with the consent of Raul and the article's writers? Pyrrhus16 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
With 390 days for our intrepid article writers to bring things up to snuff, I see no point in selecting next year's nominee now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov—three points or two?

I asked this question on the requests page but received no reply. When I placed this article on the requests page, I stated it had two points—one for date relevance, since Rimsky-Korsakov's birthday is March 18, and one point since a similar article has not not represented on main page in at least three months. Would it qualify for a third point for basic subject matter? Personally, I could see some possibly demented middle-school teacher telling a 12-year-old kid to write a report on Rimsky-Korsakov or some other classical music figure, but I'm biased. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We try to go with mainstream on the basic subject matter point, because a 12 year old could, in theory, and given a sufficiently bright kid and a sufficiently permissive teacher, write about almost anything. I would say that very few 12 year olds would learn about R-K.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Updating....

I have almost never been here when there are less than five requests, so I stuck in something to eat as I was hungry :)

PS: I guess it is also time for someone to add the crean article (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever added it to the template should add it, if they want to. There's no obligation to--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Death of Ian Tomlinson

I would like to nominate this for March 31. It's the one year anniversary of his death on April 1, but because of April Fool's Day I was thinking of asking for the day before it. It hasn't yet completed the FAC process, but it looks as though it will get through. I was therefore wondering if someone could help me work out how many points it would have. Date relevant to topic is one point, but that's all I can see so far. I don't know how the similar article issue is judged. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, we've made similar allowances in the past for date conflicts like April Fools, so I support the notion of the alternate date, giving it full points for the actual date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We routinely allow a day's grace if there is a conflict. It is difficult to give a full point estimate before promotion, but I think two points as of right now, relevance and no similar three months Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident on December 13 was the last crime (or similar) article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if there is an extraordinary conflict, like April Fools or Inner German border :) I will look at the FAC and the article on my pass through today (been busy over here!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Wehwalt, two points it is. Sandy, there's an outstanding oppose from an editor who hasn't commented since I replied to him. I've left a note on his talk page asking him to look again. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a chance at a third point depending on what category the article winds up in.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Crap, Wehwalt, can of worms :) Better read the recent discussions at WT:FA, where several of my placements were moved. Seems most editors don't agree with me on business or news topics, which I place for maximum benefit for the article! Might as well make the argument now, but there are differences with my past placements at WT:FA, where vendor articles got moved out of business to broader categories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I will admit to not following WT:FA very closely. Too busy with other stuff, and I'm way behind on my next project.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomlinson was promoted yesterday, so I'd like to nominate it, but I'm unsure of the procedure. I see there are five noms on the page already, so I assume I'm not allowed to post it. Is it a question of watching the page and then hopping in when one is removed? I've written out the blurb so that it's ready:

March 31

Ian Tomlinson (1962–2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests. A first postmortem examination suggested he had suffered a heart attack and had died of natural causes, but a week later The Guardian obtained footage showing him being struck on the leg by a police officer wielding an expandable baton, then pushed to the ground. Tomlinson walked away from the incident but died moments later. After the newspaper published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission began a criminal inquiry and ordered a second postmortem, this one indicating that Tomlinson had died from an abdominal haemorrhage, the cause of which remains unknown. A police officer has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter but has not been named or charged. The incident sparked an intense debate in the UK about the relationship between the police and the public, and the role of citizens in monitoring police and government activity—so-called sousveillance. (more...)

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a procedure on the project page that you should follow, that should supply most of the answers you are looking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read it, but I'm afraid I'm none of the wiser:
"If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following:
"1. If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
"2. If item 1 doesn't apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points articles outside that date may have.
"3. Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the article with the latest date. If the tied articles are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option."
I'm reminded of the LSAT. Can someone translate for me, please? :) Additional problems are I don't know how many points Tomlinson has (I assume two), not sure what a declaration is (is it a support?) and there is no one on March 31, so I'm not sure why I'd need to remove anyone else. Help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Tomlinson has three points, as it was placed in an underrepresented FA category. You could replace the lowest ranking article, which has two points. You do not have to worry about the numbered sections as they do not apply here. You have the points to replace it now or you can await a vacancy. It is up to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing the months and days of birth and death, per Raul's instructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, and thanks for working out the points. I'm sorry for being dense here (as I said, I'm reminded of the same old sinking feeling I had with the LSAT where certain things just would not sink in). I understand that I could replace one of the articles that has two points. But as they are asking for different dates, I'm not grasping the need to replace them. If someone with 2 points wants March 18, and I with 3 points want March 31, why does either of us have to replace the other? I can see the need for point supremacy if several of us wanted March 31, but as no one has mentioned it, I'm confused. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Raul limits us to having five articles on the page at any one time, and this is the system that has been thrashed out. We don't get terribly stressed about all this because experience has taught that even if the article is replaced, Raul runs a very high percentage of nominated articles at some point. You can nom now or you can wait, it is up to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There can only be five articles listed on the page at one time. Therefore, if you wish your article to have a higher chance of being considered and voted upon for TFA, you can replace the article with the lowest amount of points. The date(s) requested is immaterial in this respect, since the point system was developed in order to keep the page trimmed to five requests; hence the "If there are already five requests..." note. María (habla conmigo) 20:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If I remove one does that reduce the likelihood of that one getting on the main page? Because I wouldn't want to do that to someone. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm reading correctly through my day-after headache, next to be replaced (2 points, 7 supports) is a tie; there's no hurry, SV ... you can wait to see how it shakes out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
We put in a tiebreaker a while back, Sandy, the one which is later in date loses the tiebreaker and becomes "Next to be replaced"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
We did? Damn, that was smart of us :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, another dumb question: "If support is equal, remove the article with the latest date." "Latest" would normally mean most recent, but I'm assuming it means the oldest in this context, is that right? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Latest, as in the last date, the one furthest in the future. We could not say "later" because there could be a three way tie.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so nothing to do with the date it was nominated. But to do with the date is it being proposed for. So a March 2 and a March 3 entry that otherwise tie, will see the March 3 entry up for removal. Thanks. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Correct. It has more time to get back on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. By jove, I think she's got it. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs
General commentary: SV, this page has a long history. It was once gamed so badly that Raul's task became impossible: before we instituted all of these "rules", the page frequently had 200 entries, which rendered it useless for Raul, and all sorts of less-than-good-faith manipulations went on. All of these "rules" have made the page much more useful, but if you can see ways to improve the instructions, please help out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Once the Tomlinson nomination is decided, I may try to give it a copy edit (brave smile). :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added Tomlinson and replaced March 19, which only had one point. But I wonder if it would make more sense to replace March 18, which seems to have been decided with 14 supports. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Awww, doesn't anyone eat porcini? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should check and see if Casliber's account is compromised or if little birdies are inside his head. @SV, there is no flexibility to choose which article to replace except if there is a tiebreaker situation and all tiebreakers fail, which is very unlikely. That is the way we intended it. To allow choice in which article to remove could lead both to gaming and to hard feelings.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I suppose what I'm thinking is it could mean a high-point article staying up for ages, long after being approved, but taking up space that another article could use. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, good points - I am not fussed, I had just fell off my chair when I only saw three noms and jumped at it. In any case, there is no 'anniversary' with the fungus, so I'll park the pale green box for use at a later date. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
@SV, true and good points, but the system works well enough and has had only minor modifications in the past 20 months. One reason why it works well in a laid back fashion is that Raul has proved very approachable for special (or even routine!) requests, which is the safety valve on the system. As I have said, the percentage of nominated articles, even if they don't make it thorugh the process, to get on the main page is in the high 80s. So I would not sweat it too much. The squeaky wheel does get the grease.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the safety valve is good. Cas, was that your fungus I removed? If you like, you can put it back and remove Tomlinson. There's more time for Tomlinson between now and then than there is for your mushrooms. I only added him because I was starting to get nervous seeing April articles arrive. So please, do put back the fungus if you want to. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are only four articles on the request page at the moment (???), so both can remain (did something else disappear off the page?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Something seems to have disappeared, so you can put yours back on if you like. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a better one which is a core article which I am surprised hasn't been on already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a vital article, not a core topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh fudge, now someone's knocked of the bird article...oh well, we can wait a few months...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I've reverted myself. I didn't realise the Music of Maryland article was in that bad condition. I'll take it to FAR. Perhaps you should keep bird for Bird Day on May 4? Pyrrhus16 05:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FA Review

Today's featured article(We Are the World) fails WP:CHARTS, specifically references should be individual and specific to each chart. While this is a minor thing, I then looked at tomorrows featured article(Ceawlin of Wessex) and noticed it failed WP:ALT. These articles are both unlikely to get through a WP:FAC today. The ideal should be that Today's featured article comply with recent standards of a Featured article. One thought would be to have a review of articles before they make the front page. Some sort of checking seems advisable especially in light of the recent DYK BLP incident. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who wrote the We Are the World article, I take exception to your comment that it would not pass a FAC today. I was told to put all of the refs beside peak position during its FAC. That issue, along with alt text, is something that can easily be fixed. Also, I believe that FAR is a last resort for an FA with huge problems. I disagree with your suggestion that every potential TFA should be taken there beforehand. Pyrrhus16 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)My apology, the intention was to highlight that Today's feature articles may not comply with current FAC practice and not anything specific to any particlular article. I've edited above to add 'without alteration'. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Comparing WP:CHARTS and WP:ALT to a DYK BLP vio is ... weird.
  2. Wiki is a work in progress; no article is perfect.
  3. Minor issues that come up in TFA are worked out on talk as a result of mainpage day.
  4. Why did you post this here? This is only the requests page.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)1. You find it acceptable that issues with TFA could be major or minor?
4. Yeah, I don't nagivate around TFA often and this seemed suitable but no doubt somewhere else is better. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree, generally. I should add that if an article is nominated here that is at least a couple of years old, I for one and I think others look at the article to see if it is generally up to speed. I do not, however, feel obligated to deal with alt text issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt, It's good to know that articles are at least informally checked. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not all of them. But if I read "two year FA" and there's no indication of a recent FAR, I'll at least skim the article and I'll bring it up if I feel the article is not up to speed anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge

9 April

The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a First World War military offensive undertaken by the Canadian Corps against elements of the German Sixth Army. The battle was part of the opening phase of the British-led Battle of Arras and was fought between 9 April to 12 April 1917 in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of France. The objective of the Canadian Corps was to take control of the German-held high ground along the strategically significant Vimy Ridge, an escarpment at the northernmost end of the Arras battlefield. Supported by a creeping barrage, the Canadian Corps captured most of the ridge during the first day of the attack, the remainder falling to the Canadian Corps over the following days. The German were forced to retreat a number of kilometres to the safety of the Oppy–Méricourt line. Historians attribute the success of the operation to a mixture of technical and tactical innovation, meticulous planning, powerful artillery support, and extensive training, as well as the failure of the German Sixth Army to properly apply the elastic defence defensive doctrine. The battle was the first occasion all four divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force participated in a battle together and thus became a Canadian nationalistic symbol of achievement and sacrifice. A 250-acre (100 ha) portion of the former battleground now serves as a preserved memorial park, and site of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. (more...)

2-3 points. 93rd Anniversary of the battle and Vimy Ridge Day in Canada (1 pt) and is my first submission (1 pt). The topic is a basic subject matter (1pt) in Canada, but not elsewhere, so I'll let the powers at be decided if that applies.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to support three points if you nomiated it (you haven't yet, we don't do that on this page, I am sure you know that). Vimy Ridge to Canada is like Gallipoli to Australia, though not quite as much.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm dry running the description here and waiting for a spot to open up on the main page before moving it over.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
If SMS Moltke (1910) runs on 7 April, and it probably will being a 7 pointer (age of article and centennial of launch), the battle will be get -3 points from its total due to another warfare category article running within two weeks, so it would not be a 2-3 point article but a -1 to 0 point article. Sorry, -MBK004 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that it's not the category, it's how similar the articles are, and in this case I would think that a WWII battle != a WWI warship. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, by that logic, you could probably fill a couple of weeks with warfare articles each claiming to be dissimilar from the other 13 and maybe even claiming main page representation points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Touche; I did a little checking and discovered that ~15% of FAs are warfare-related (numbers from WP:FA and WP:MILHIST/SHOW). I would divide it by land, sea, and air then, as those—while all war-related—can turn out to be quite different articles. It's not a big deal though, so whatever you decide is fine with me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And the Marine regiment, which of course bridges land and sea? And air (hits head to stop Marine Corps Hymn).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Touche again. Alright, I give up, it's too hard to separate them. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I was of the impression that ship centennials are celebrated on the 100-year anniversary of comissioning, not launch.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps splitting hairs, but if SMS Moltke (1910) does end up going on the 7th, then that would take out three points to me, as both are WWI Milhist articles. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to general relativity

Albert Einstein, who developed the theory of general relativity
Albert Einstein, who developed the theory of general relativity

General relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein (pictured). According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. Before the advent of general relativity, Newton's law of universal gravitation had been accepted. Experiments show that Einstein's description accounts for several effects that are unexplained by Newton's law. Some general relativity predictions have been confirmed by experiment, while others are the subject of ongoing research. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes and of the standard Big Bang model of cosmology. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest such theory that is consistent with the experimental data. Nevertheless, a number of open questions remain: the most fundamental is how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity. (more...)

Introduction to general relativity might be a good one to run on April 18, the 55th anniversary of Albert Einstein's death. I know it gets 3 points for age and subject matter, but what counts as a similar article to this? Would it be something like attachment theory, which ran on January 25, 2010, or something to do with physics, like electron, which ran on November 21, 2009? Pyrrhus16 11:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say the latter, group only with physics; it doesn't really seem linked to the other in any way beyond both being a somewhat intangible concept. Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

The emblem for 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines.

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines (3/3) is an infantry battalion in the United States Marine Corps consisting of approximately 800 Marines and Sailors. Known as "America's Battalion", the unit falls under the 3rd Marine Regiment of the 3rd Marine Division. The battalion was formed in 1942 and saw action on both Bougainville and Guam during World War II. Following the war the battalion was alerted for possible deployment during the 1956 Suez Crisis and the 1958 Lebanon crisis. From 1965-1969 the Marines of 3rd Battalion were deployed to the Vietnam War and participated in Operation Starlite. In 1975 the battalion moved to Hawaii. In the 1980s 3rd Battalion deployed off the coast of Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War. It deployed again in 1990 as part of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and saw action at the Battle of Khafji. In the 21st century 3/3 deployed overseas in support of the War in Afghanistan and three times in support of the Iraq War. Among 3/3 Marines are a Commandant of the Marine Corps, four Medal of Honor recipients, and over twenty Navy Cross winners. The battalion has been awarded two Presidential Unit Citations and five Navy Unit Commendations. (more...)

3 points. This article was promoted more than two years ago (2 points). Subject is significant underrepresented: while there are a lot of military articles out there, most are on battles or people; there are very few on actual military units (warships excepted) (1 point). I have put in a lot of work to try and make this article the gold standard for military units. Just throwing that last point out there. :) Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The blurb is 1,300 characters with spaces, the limit is 1,200; please check the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose per SunCreator. Krakatoa (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Fixed the dead link problem. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as 2 points. It is a great unit history piece and I hope it runs before you deploy. Some of the previous commentators are correct about the rules saying that this counts as a military article and therefore getting no under representation points, but you are right in pointing out that among military artilces unit histories like this are under represented compared with say articles on weapon systems,individual battles, or especially warships and I hope we see more like it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It is an underrepresented topic off Wikipeida (we talk it about it in the states but not really) and a Wikipedian pushing for it gives it umpfff in my eyes. SandyGeorgia's comments need to be addressed though. Would love to make a Marine's day without giving him my girlfriend.Cptnono (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Pyrrhus and Rusty Cashman—well done! Jonyungk (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is nominally a FA but doesn't meet current FA standards. It has undue weight and is massively recentist on 21st century events, especially when the Vietnam section notes some violent battles that led to 500 odd deaths and 2800 odd injuries, whereas there is a lot more on the current Afghan and Iraq stuff, even when there were no injuries in these operations. The fact that almost all the sources for the current stuff are from military press releases is indicative that they didn't have any impact in third party publications; there is even a whole paragraph on recent training exercises when real combat of yesteryear is much skinnier. Finally there are unsourced paragraphs, and a very high proportion of sources are not indept of the army or veterans clubs. Putting this on the main page will probably lead to a pile of "FA is a farce" comments (perhaps people will be put off participating in FA), as well as an WP:FAR a few days later; this kind of thing can be a billboard for a delisting. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Also the big battles v Japan in WWII aren't covered enough vis a vis the current stuff, and I don't agree with describing the specifics of the SS/MoH actions as one soldier's bravery can't do much to the final result of a battle compared to the skill/discipline of the whole battalion of 800-1,000 and the tactics/leadership of the commanding officer (or blunders by the enemy) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per YellowMonkey's concerns, at least until the primary editor responds to YM's comment satsifactorily. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment So all YellowMonkey is saying is that this article needs to be delisted, torn down, and rewritten from scratch? I'm not really seeing any specific issues that need to be fixed here other than just a general dislike of the whole piece. Stuff like "Putting this on the main page will... put [people] off participating in FA" and "this kind of thing can be a billboard for a delisting" are not helpful critiques, and are a little insulting since I've put in a lot of time working on this article over the last three years. Give me some specific criticisms like Krakatoa or SunCreator and I'll answer them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ignoring YM's last couple of sentences, he listed pretty specific issues: recentism, undue weight, and amount and depth of referencing. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And I believe those issues are unreasonable: He wants me to somehow use a lot more references but rely less on veterans groups and the US military (Difficult to see who else would be writing about us) and he wants me to somehow conjure up more material from the 1940s and 1960s while ignoring easily accessible contemporary Marine Corps articles. I'm active-duty military and while I love going to the library I don't have time to be rummaging through the National Archives (Especially since I'm stationed in Hawaii). WP:Size cautions against anything bigger than 30-50KB and my article is already at 66KB. This is an encyclopedia article, not a novel. Palm_Dogg (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The material on the battalion's recent activities is clearly bloated compared to the material on its history prior to 2004. This might need to go to a FAR, and clearly isn't an example of Wikipedia's best articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nick-D. Needs to go to FAR. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of the many issues, WP:Recentism really needs to be addressed. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Made major cuts per WP:Recentism. The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Obviously I should have posted it here first before putting it in the queue. My bad (although I think it was dirty pool running up four oppositions in a few hours and then yanking it while I was making major revisions in good faith). As I said earlier, I'm not particular about the date but would like to get it on the Main Page in the next few months. Have left the previous threads intact and will continue to work on critiques as noted. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pigeons in Aerial photography

While not a featured article, Pigeons in aerial photography would make a great TFA for April Fool's day. Articles have been temporarily promoted before for being shown on that date.--T1980 (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about the choice of featured article for April Fool's Day. I don't know what has went on in the past, but I'm sure that there would be a very strong objection if an article was temporarily promoted in order to be featured on a themed day. Pyrrhus16 03:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Every article to be featured on the mainpage has been a gen-u-ine Featured Article. To my knowledge, there's no such thing as a temporary promotion. In the past, there have been mad dashes to write and promote a quirky article to Featured-status in order to have them premiere on the mainpage in time, but they've all been through FAC and justly received their gold stars. Pigeons in aerial photography is pretty sweet, so maybe you want to bring this up on the article's talk page as well? María (habla conmigo) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Bloody hell that's a cracker of an article. I think that one is going on my watchlist :) Parrot of Doom 15:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I was mistaken, the articles are promoted to featured status after a rush job is put on them. This would be a good one for next year. Someone will need to remind me.--T1980 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 19 point discussion

March 19

I've moved the following from the request page to here as it was added as a sixth article. If it has three points, it would replace the later Aberhart article, if not, it does not, so we need to figure out the points. Please add your comments at the end of the discussion, below the blurb.

A large number of wigged, robed figures in a wood-covered courtroom. A large royal crest decorates the rear wall, with four judges sitting in front of it. Below them, a group of scribes sit writing, along with a large jewelled sceptre and cushion.

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace of change and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the common law. Academics estimate that the Court of Chancery formally split from and became independent of the curia regis in about 1345, at which time it consisted of the Lord Chancellor and his personal staff, the Chancery. Initially an administrative body with some judicial duties, the Chancery experienced an explosive growth in its work during the 15th century, particularly under the House of York, which academics attribute to it becoming an almost entirely judicial body. From the time of Elizabeth I onwards the Court was severely criticised for its slow pace, large backlogs, and high costs. Those problems persisted until its dissolution, despite being mitigated somewhat by reforms, particularly during the 19th century. Attempts at fusing the Chancery with the common law courts began in the 1850s, and finally succeeded with the 1873 and 1875 Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, which dissolved the Chancery and created a new unified High Court of Justice, with the Chancery Division succeeding the Court of Chancery as an equitable body. (more...)


  • No date significance, I just thought it'd make a nice change. 3 points; 2 because no similar article (a court) has been featured in 6 months, 1 because it's a law article and thus underrepresented. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be inclined to say tentatively one point. It is a law related article, and I will have to check when the last one we had was.. By that logic we could have a court one day, a barrister the next, an article on a gavel the third, a famous case the fourth, all claiming main page representation points.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well if you had a barrister, surely the next "related article" would be a similar legal figure? Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Also see "Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar." - so in this case, "law" would not count as "similar", I think. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Considering the support March 31 (law) already has, this law-related is going to have a hard time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You've added this as a sixth article as well. Problem there.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I find five articles that are law related in the past three months, including a prison. I find ten law related articles in the past six months, including one of the Inns of Court. I really don't think this topic is neglected. In my view, One point.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless there is objection, I'm going to move this to Talk. If there is a strong view that this has three points, we can bring it back here and bump Adelhart. No prejudice to this article, but we can't maintain a sixth article and this was the last to be added and the points are very questionable.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - If it is established that all law-related articles are considered similar, then I would suggest Ironholds nominate instead his/her William Garrow article for April 13. It will be Garrow's 250th birthday, making the article a 4-pointer, I believe. Pyrrhus16 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think you can really classify all "law" articles as related. Per the guidance given, it would seem legal figures would be related, while courts would not; films and music, for example, both media, would be classified differently for TFA purposes. Ironholds (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    Fair enough. How do you draw the line, and how do you justify excluding the prison and the Inn of Court, to say nothing of the various attorneys and statutes that have appeared in the last six months?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    Legal figures (judges, lawyers) are classed together, legal organisations (Inns of Court, bar associations) are classed together, legal positions (judicial roles, say) and so on are classed together, legal precedent/law (statutes, cases) are classed together. Courts, I'd say, should be classed independently; they're not "organisations", nor positions, nor roles, nor anything similar, and they're a large enough body that they won't get left out in the cold. Ironholds (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    Tend to disagree, for the reasons I stated. Would welcome other views on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    As said, "Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar." - grouping all "law" articles together, as you have done, seems to violate this. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    I would not say that all law articles would be similar. We generally separate out people from their professional activities. I would say that a lawyer would be dissimilar to a legal institution. However, the idea of having courts be sui generis both from other legal institutions and from other organs of government probably goes a bit too far. We've had articles not only on lawyers, but on laws, law organizations, governmental facilities were lawbreakers are kept, and even an opera about a court proceeding in the last six months. I really hesitate to say that we are crying out for an article on a law topic and that we should jam our thumbs on the scales for two points. The point of the main page representation points is to assure, as well as we can, that different articles from different areas of knowledge get on the main page. I just don't think that law is being neglected right now. And, full disclosure, I'm a lawyer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Never done this before

So a little help - an article I've been working on for nearly a year, 2009 Giro d'Italia, just made it to FA. Yay! As the Giro is coming up again, there's an obvious date significance tie-in for a TFA request. But what is the better date: May 8 (that's when the 2010 Giro begins) or May 9 (exactly one year since the 2009 Giro began)? Does it really even matter? I'd prefer the 8th, but my ultimate preference is just to see my pet article grace the front page. Thanks for any help. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion. Either date would be suitable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. So am I going to want to pounce on WP:TFA/R immediately on April 8? Will I need a 'blurb' prepared by then? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep your eyes peeled - sometimes Raul schedules for a good few weeks in advance, which opens dates up earlier than you might think. And writing a draft in your userspace in readiness, as some other people do, is a good idea as it will save you time later. BencherliteTalk 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your help. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have another question, actually – in determining whether a "similar" article has graced the main page, am I looking for another cycling article or another article concerning sports of any kind? There are only two other FA's on cycling events, and the one that has been on the main page was there in December 2008. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say sports in general, not including athletes. If not, we could have cycling on Monday, drag racing on Tuesday, cricket on Wednesday, etc all solemnly claiming main page representation points.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my first stab at a "blurb". Any feedback on it would be greatly appreciated. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

April 11

Thought I'd bring this here, to make it easier for Raul and others to see the variety of choices for April 11. Pyrrhus16 13:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is for the community to sort the requests, so Raul doesn't have to sort through dozens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Probably most days, there are several articles with anniversaries. Especially during hurricane season!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and they are all listed here so that he can see what the choices are, instead of mucking around with diffs and page histories to see what was nominated for this date when they keep getting replaced on the main page. Pyrrhus16 01:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well ... is this a one off, or is there some thought to doing it more often?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Of doing what more often? Pyrrhus16 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, the whole point is for Raul to not have to do this. He looks at the five on the page. The reason the page came about is that he used to have to dig through dozens of requests. This defeats the purpose of the page. The highest point article goes up, the talk page is irrelevant except for special circumstances like April Fools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I added it so that he would have an at-a-glance summary of all 4 articles that were appropriate for that one specific day. The main requests page is being updated all the time, meaning that nominations for that one specific day are continually being replaced. It is much easier to see which articles there are to chose from for that one day, when the information is at-a-glance and in one place. I'm sure he is a busy guy in real life and I'm assuming that it would thus be time-consuming to traipse through numerous diffs while trying to remember points, contributor history, main page representation, age promoted, etc, for all 4 appropriate articles. I didn't add the stuff below to initiate further !voting. I just added it for ease, so that one could see all of the options available in a single glance/mouse click. Pyrrhus16 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this. Raul may find it helpful to have more suggestions. However, he has limited us to considering five articlea at any one time. We are getting an awful lot of blurbs at one time. I think where I would suggest drawing the line is here: if the purpose of discussing an article on this talk page is to decide how many points it should have, that's good. If the purpose is discussing whether or not it should be TFA, well, that's an end run around the five article rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree: I don't think Pyrrhus is understanding that this is exactly what Raul has asked not happen here. Besides, if there's a 5-point and several lesser point articles for the same day, the outcome is clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect): 5 points

5 points - 180th birthday (2 points); Peter I. Vardy (talk · contribs)'s first TFA (1 point); main page representation (last architect was June 2, 2009, Rudolf Wolters) (2 points).

Luton Town F.C.: 3 points

3 points - 125th anniversary of club's founding (2 points); Cliftonian (talk · contribs)'s first TFA (1 point).

Trevor Linden: 3 points

3 points - 40th birthday (2 points); promoted in 2008 (1 point).

  • It's a little long, could we collapse it and leave a summary or maybe move the blurbs to a sub page, leaving only the names and point values? We do have an embarrassment of riches here and I'm just glad not to be involved in the fracas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools blurb

Per my comment here, I am looking for people with a funny sense of humor to write up a main page blurb for Wife selling, which is currently my #1 choice for April Fools. Remember - the goal is to produce something that people will think is an obvious hoax, but without saying anything that is untrue. Humor is also a very good thing.

I took Parrot's suggestion from the talk page, tweaked it a bit, and I'm putting it here for people to further tweak. Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow up, Raul ... one of the proposals isn't at FAC yet, but Ruhrfisch already has the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Raul, I may have misunderstood and taken this too far: are you set already on Wife selling, or should the others submit blurbs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll make the final judgment once I see all the blurbs, but right now that's my frontrunner. Raul654 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling

A contemporary French print on the English custom of Wife selling.

The English custom of wife selling was a way of ending an unsatisfactory marriage at a time when divorce was impractical for all but the very wealthiest, requiring an Act of Parliament. A husband would take his wife to market and parade her with a halter around her neck, arm, or waist, before publicly auctioning her to the highest bidder; any children from the marriage might also be sold along with with their mother. Prices paid for wives varied considerably, from a high of £100 (plus £25 each for her two children), to a low of a glass of ale, or even free. Sales were sometimes organised by the local Poor Law authorities as an alternative to having to pay for the upkeep of destitute families, although the buying and selling of wives was not restricted to the lower orders. The Duke of Chandos bought his second wife at one such sale in Newbury in about 1744. Along with other English customs, wife selling was exported to England's American colonies, where one man sold his wife for "two dollars and half [a] dozen bowls of grogg". Wife selling persisted in some form until the early 20th century according to the jurist and historian James Bryce. Husbands were sometimes sold by their wives in a similar manner, but much less frequently. (more...)

I tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Who nicked my blurb :) I don't like the French image, its....French. The Rowlandson image (good old extremely rude English caricaturist, just check his entry on commons) is much better. Parrot of Doom 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that picture is that it's not well suited to the main page. The low contrast and washed-out colors (and the fact that everyone is standing around on the same level instead of having an auction block) mean it's basically impossible to see what is going on in a main-page sized thumbnail. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
What about a cropped, upright version of the image? Where the wife is clearly visible? Parrot of Doom 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Cropping seems a great idea. The french image is to French and the English image in it's current form has not got a good perspective. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Cropping is evil. If the Rowlandson is no good as he intended it, perhaps the Victorian Identikit: [1] or a decent size version of Finucane's ugly Sale of a Wife in Smithfield Market if one can be found. The French one is OK anyway, even if it nicks from pays homage to Hogarth, using it is preferable to hacking up Rowlandson's composition. Yomanganitalk 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Added a bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


A contemporary French print on the English custom of Wife selling.

Wife selling was an English form of dissolving marriage where women were liberated from a boorish philanderer by allowing him to think he had the right to get rid of her by selling her to the highest bidder. It was a rare custom among the 18th century poorer classes who were unable to afford the costs of divorce. Although on its face it seemed women were considered and treated as chattle and property, many of their lives seemed to improve considerably when finally rid of that miserable lout. This surge in satisfaction was incomparable to the joy of family, friends, and acquaintances, who would gather to witness auctions in large public spectacles, rejoicing when no longer faced with having to listen to the endless bickering and interminable whinging of both parties. The costs of sale ran from barely waking up from a nap, to a pint of ale or grog, to £100. It may have endured into the early 20th century, and extended to the American colonies. Husband selling was a variation, but not as popular owing to the negligent market. (more...)

My emphasis was on funny, not accuracy, so tweak as needed. If this runs, people will get bent out of shape, men, women, etc., no matter what the article actually says. I figured, why not grab that by the balls right off? --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty here is that the man was not usually the philanderer, it was the woman. In fact in many of the sales it was prearranged that she would be bought by her lover, with whom she was often already living anyway. And surprisingly it doesn't appear to have been all that rare; so common in fact that it's been speculated that until the mid-19th century newspapers hardly bothered to report on it. I think you're right about people getting bent out of shape though, no matter what the blurb says. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A contemporary French print on the English custom of Wife selling.

Wife selling was an English traditional practice begun in the 17th century and continuing into the 20th. A husband would take his wife to market and parade her with a halter around her neck, arm, or waist, before publicly auctioning her to the highest bidder; any children from the marriage might also be sold along with with their mother. Prices paid for wives varied considerably, from a high of £100 (plus £25 each for her two children), to a low of a glass of ale, or even free. Sales were sometimes organised by the local Poor Law authorities as an alternative to having to pay for the upkeep of destitute families, although the buying and selling of wives was not restricted to the lower orders. The Duke of Chandos bought his second wife at one such sale in Newbury in about 1744. Along with other English customs, wife selling was exported to England's American colonies, where one man sold his wife for "two dollars and half [a] dozen bowls of grogg". Husbands were sometimes sold by their wives in a similar manner, but much less frequently. (more...)

Here's my suggested rewrite. It kind of kills the joke if you get too much into the detail of it as a form of divorce; better to let the reader think the English commonly bought and sold women into the 20th century, be outraged, and then read the article to learn the truth! –Grondemar 17:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cock Lane Ghost

A monochrome illustration of a narrow street, viewed from a corner, or intersection. A large three-storey building is visible on the right of the image. The ground floor has three windows, the first and second floors have two windows each. The roof appears to contain a row of windows, for a loft space. The word "KING" is written between the first and second floors, and a sign, "Gas meter maker" hangs above the ground floor windows.

The Cock Lane ghost attracted mass public attention in 18th-century London, when 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 during childbirth, Kent had become romantically involved with her sister, Fanny. The couple moved to London and lodged at a property owned by Parsons. Kent loaned Parsons a sum of money, which the latter did not repay, and Kent responded by suing him. Fanny died of smallpox however, and Kent claimed that his property was haunted by her ghost. The hauntings centred around his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, and séances were held to determine "Scratching Fanny's" motives; Cock Lane was often made almost impassable by the throngs of interested spectators who gathered there. The story became a focus of controversy between the Methodist and Anglican churches, and is frequently referenced in contemporary literature. Charles Dickens is one of several Victorian authors who allude to the story in their work, and the pictorial satirist William Hogarth referenced the story in two of his prints. (more...)

Parrot of Doom 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Green

Stanley Green, the Protein Man (1915–1993), was an English sandwich man who became one of London's much-loved eccentrics in the latter half of the 20th century. For 25 years, rarely missing a day, Green patrolled Oxford Street with a placard warning that too much protein made people lustful and aggressive, though his solution to erotic excess—"Less Passion From Less Protein: Less Fish Meat Bird Cheese Egg: Peas Beans, Nuts and Sitting"—was not always appreciated, and he had to take to wearing overalls to protect himself from spit. His 14-page pamphlet, Eight Passion Proteins with Care, printed at home on an ancient and noisy contraption—the typeface, size and weight sometimes changing halfway through a word—sold 87,000 copies over 20 years, and made its way over the years to five British prime ministers, the editor of The Times, the Prince of Wales, and Pope Paul VI. An expanded 392-page version was rejected for publication by Oxford University Press in 1971. (more...)

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: cut the protein consumption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you, uh, want me to try to make that funnier, or is dry the way to go with this one? --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I like dry. But maybe you could write the wet version below it. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Damn diet. That was cruel, SV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In case it helps, Green's daily diet was homemade bread, porridge, barley water with powdered milk, and one egg, which he said protected him from erotic excess. If that's of any interest. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Green, was a prophetic visionary who walked the streets of London for more than two decades, informing the innocent about the dangers of protein in diets that led to lust and sensual aggression. Between 1968 and his death in 1993, Green advertised with a sandwich board that fish, meats, and beans would lead young ladies astray from their proper virginal conditions for marriage. Impugning their modesty led to Green's arrest twice and his need to wear overalls to avoid being spat upon. He furthermore printed his views on the protein-lechery link in a 14-page pamphlet titled Eight Passion Proteins with Care, that were manufactured on a cacophonous machine he operated himself, selling 87,000 copies during his career. Green specifically indicted the BBC for instilling impure thoughts among Britons, and his warnings found their way to five sitting prime ministers, the Prince of Wales, the British Medical Association, and Pope Paul VI. (more...)

Think the dry way might be the way to go. I don't find this as funny as others might. The subject matter yes, but the attempt at a blurb not so much. Maybe I need to try it again when I'm not...this way. --Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area

Quehanna Wild Area is a 48,186-acre (19,500 ha) wilderness area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, established in 1955 as a habitat for the nuclear jet engine. Quehanna was the only wild area in the state with its own nuclear reactor and hot cells, as well as populations of radioactive species like cobalt-60 and strontium-90. The state originally acquired the land in the early 20th century as a preserve of tree stumps and ashes, and after the Second World War it was the site of experiments to combat acid rain by dynamiting beaver dams. Efforts to bury toxic waste in Quehanna were hampered when black bear and white-tailed deer dug it up again. The wild area is Pennsylvania's largest, and its great size allows visitors to track migrations of its elk herd and tornados. After they became locally extinct, the state successfully reintroduced elk, white-tailed deer, and fishers in Quehanna, and in 1992 established a small colony of prisoners there. The wild area is a 16-sided polygon because building a circular fence around 75 square miles (190 km2) of second-growth forest was too difficult. (more...)

This is still a work in progress, but I think I can have it to FAC by next Monday at the latest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to Raul; Ruhrfisch & Co articles always clear FAC quickly, as they are usually presented in almost "perfect" shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks very much for your kind words Sandy. I wanted to say there are some other bits that might be suitable for the blurb - the land was originally purchased for a few dollars an acre, then sold to Curtiss-Wright for about $200,000, then bought back by the state 10 years later for almost $1 million. The state has since put in about $30 million in radioactive cleanup costs. It was used to make the power plant for the world's first (and perhaps only?) nuclear powered lighthouse. The 75 miles (121 km) Quehanna Trail System hiking path runs through it and has a bunch of lovely over-engineered footbridges designed by engineering faculty at Pennsylvania State University - not sure if these are worth adding to the blurb. I am fine if this is not OK for April Fools (in which case I will not try to get to FAC by Monday next), it just seems to have the "this can't be true, but it is" aspect to it, as do the others here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It will be ready by Monday if it needs to be. There are others standing by to help Ruhrfisch when he requests it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, here it is Monday. Perhaps it is not surprising that an article on radioactive waste site that was supposed to be cleaned up in 6 months and took over 8 years is running a bit behind schedule. I think it can be ready for FAC in two or three days, including a very short stint at PR (hopefully). Thanks to Auntieruth55 for all her help so far, and Niagara for looking at the tornado section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The nomination is in at FAC - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quehanna Wild Area/archive1. Now that the article is basically done, I wonder if any other things could be added to the blurb? They buried items contaminated with toxic beryllium oxide in the woods, only to find later that deer and black bear had dug it up again. There are also now many photos in the article, so not sure if one of them might be better (three are currently fair use though). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked the blurb above. I am not sure about mentioning the prisoners - I would not use the deaths of two forest rangers trying to dismantle on one of the jet fuel tanks in the silly lead, but I am not sure being sent to a Boot camp rises to that level of tragedy. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like April 1 has already been decided and scheduled by Raul. Though, I'm sure you could get a April Fool's DYK for this article. Pyrrhus16 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I had assumed Raul would post it here and it was undecided. While I like the idea of a DYK, would that disqualify it from consideration for April 1 in 2011? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would wait for April 1, 2011. The article is a fine one, deserving of a becoming a TFA in its own right. I would have been more comfortable with it than with Wife selling, but that's Raul's call. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
With the article now fleshed out, I see numerous further opportunities for humor. In addition to the idea that beryllium species were rescued from burial by deer and black bear, there is also "The centre of the area was inhabited by an octagon, to which the nuclear jet engines were tethered to prevent them escaping." Geometry guy 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

April 7

I'm going to nominate SMS Moltke (1910) for the 7th, which is the centennial of her launch. I'm a little unsure of which to replace, though, as two of the nominations have an unclear number of points (Noronha skink and Alice Ayers). Also, Moltke will be 7 points (centennial plus one year from promotion), but will it lose points from Uriel Sebree on the 24th? It's a bio, but he's a US Navy admiral, so there's also the military connection. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Readding articles

An article that I had nominated was just bumped off the list, despite already having 6 supports. I plan to readd the request to the page once a spot frees up. However, should I add it as a new request, or readd it with the old votes? NW (Talk) 17:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

My recollection is that articles tend to be readded as they were when bumped off, with a note at the bottom explaining that these were the comments at that time. BencherliteTalk 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That's what people do, and no one seems to object. If there was a change of date, though, I think you'd have to go back to square one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Representation query

I'm planning to propose Manitoba for May 12, however I'm unsure on whether it should gain or lose points based on main page representation. Similar articles recently featured = Geography? Canada? Canadian geography? States/provinces? Other? Advice would be much appreciated. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Geography generally, I would think. Any article on a country or political subdivision, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April 22

Moved from request page. –Grondemar 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein: Please forgive me for undoubtedly doing this request completely wrong. This is my first such request so any and all advice on fixing the request is appreciated. Points: Age since promotion greater than one year, 1 pt; Quinvigintennial anniversary (75 years since release) 2 pts; Contributor history...my first request and I am a major contributor, 1 pt; Representation...last film article was Blade Runner on 12/2/09, more than 3 months prior, 1 pt. Total 5 points. Otto4711 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to write a blurb for the article like the ones that appear on the main page and include it with the request. You also normally would remove one of the other requests with less points that your requested article when there are already 5 on the page (see the instructions at the top of the page). However, in this case, American Beauty is already scheduled for March 26, so I think you will lose 2 points for a similar article within 1 month of the requested date, not gain 1 point. That would mean this request only has 2 points, which isn't more than any of the other requests on the page, and thus you can't replace any of them right now. I would recommend you write up a blurb and then try resubmitting this request when there are less than 5 requests on the page. Calathan (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

May 10 snafu

I've restored Chamberlain in place of Bride of Frankenstein. Chamberlain was replaced under the claim of 4 points to 3 for Bride of Frankenstein (actually, since there was a vacancy, Otto should not have removed Chamberlain at all). As Dabomb87 realized, Bride had only 3 points as the nominator, Otto, claimed a first time TFA point and he was the major contributor to Judy Garland, a former TFA. Thus, I've reversed the replacement. Otto is free to nom Bride of Frankenstein properly, and we could have an interesting situation developing for May 10, and may the best article win.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I did not request that Judy Garland be a TFA; the phrasing of that criterion is poor anyway because it implies ownership of articles by individual Wikipedians but since I had no involvement in the decision to feature Judy Garland it seems unreasonable to withhold a point on that basis. Even without it BoF rates three points and Chamberlain should rate no more than one because the similar article Józef Piłsudski ran on April 5. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
April 5 is 35 days before May 10, there is no point deduction. The purpose of the bonus point for contributor history is to give those whose work has never appeared main page a better chance, it is not a bonus chip to be saved until needed. It is three points each, your removal, twice now, was improper. Please revert your edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think either needs to be removed. Rule 2 applies only if the two articles have differing point totals. They do not, so we go on to rule 3, which states to remove the request with the lowest total, (I think it's implicit that the date does not matter). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but then we have to remove something else, probably Decathlon. For the reasons stated on the requests page, I would say a reversion is better. Otto would then be free to request Bride again at its proper point value by removing the lowest point article, if he wants to.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Since next to be replaced is now the fountain (May 18) and since an editor noted that he planned to nom a higher point article for the 18th, I just nommed Chamberlain to replace the fountain. Let the community decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Template request

Could someone please remove "Manitoba" from the pending template? It's been nominated, but my browser insists that it cannot possibly edit the template. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. –Grondemar 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on protection of Main Page Featured Article

Please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Logjam

We have a May 10 article that isn't going to make it but can't be removed (since Bird is the next to be replaced according to the rules), but a May 6 article with eight points (George V of the United Kingdom) on the pending requests list. Something is wrong with our instructions if George V can't replace the dead May 10 request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the consensus is that Neville Chamberlain should be shown on May 10 instead of Bride of Frankenstein, but nobody (other than me) bothered to formally oppose Bride of Frankenstein. If at least three other people !voted to oppose Bride of Frankenstein, it could be removed. –Grondemar 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think we worded this wrong:

1.If a requested article has at least five supports and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.

Shouldn't it be "If a requested article has at least five declarations ... "? The May 10 article can't be removed no matter how many opposes under the current wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, "declarations" does seem to make more sense. That'd mean that if Bride gets just one more support or oppose, it could be removed, whereas with the current wording it could take a hell of a lot longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It should read "declarations".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree it should read "declarations". That's how I was interpreting the statement with what I said above. –Grondemar 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked through the history and it looks like User:SlimVirgin changed that section of the instructions from "declarations" to "supports" on March 1, 2010: diff. Probably a misunderstanding. –Grondemar 04:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks for finding that-- I couldn't for the life of me figure out how that wording ended up there, when Wehwalt and I were so careful in this page's design, and I missed that change. I've restored the original wording,[2] so the page can begin to function again. Someone should put in the eight-pointer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Found the original discussion about that text, which was noticed on the main page here.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Choice of dates for Virginia

I'm considering nominating the article on Virginia for one of several days coming up, and I wonder if any were better than the others. May 14 is the 403 anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, May 15 and June 26 are 234 years since the state declared independence and passed a constitution respectively, and June 25 is 222 since it became a U.S. state. Any of those sound like one we could aim for? Any other tips or thoughts that users have for us here are appreciated!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

All the dates sound good to me, though I'm not sure yet whether or not WP:MJJ is considering nominating Michael Jackson for June 25, the 1st anniversary of his death. Pyrrhus16 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This article would undoubtedly be similar to Manitoba, which may run in mid May. I would suggest running it at least 30 days after that so it doesn't lose points.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd argue for either May 15 or June 25 as the most relevant dates; given the similarity to Manitoba (disclosure: I'm the nominator for that article), I would suggest June 25 (or you could wait until next year and get a multiple of 5 for May 15...). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on June 25, though Michael Jackson could cause a complication on whether the Virginia article runs on that date. Jonyungk (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Good to know. Does being a day off help at all do you think? Like June 26, the anniversary of their constitution, does it get any bounce from June 25, the anniversary of statehood? I'll be sure check on the status of the MJ article before nominating for any of these. And just out of curiosity, what's May 15 in Manitoba? Thanks!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
May 15th isn't anything - the issue there is running two similar articles on the main page in quick succession, since Manitoba may run May 12 ("Manitoba Homecoming 2010" - Manitoba Day, and Manitoba's official 140th birthday). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, I meant to ask about the 12th.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 14:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Commenting on Manitoba, I'm somewhat doubtful of the anniversary point, since it is not the anniversary of Manitoba coming into Confederation, it's just a day set up for the celebration, two months off. However, four points instead of five isn't going to cause a problem, we've never bumped a 4 point article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's the day when the Manitoba Act was given royal assent (creating the province, but not officially bringing it into Confederation); it's also the day on which Manitoba's flag was dedicated. Officially, it is considered to be Manitoba's "birthday". Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. I see no problem then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to update, I posted a query at the Michael Jackson article, and I think, if they can resolve their own disputes about the article, that it'll be nominated for 6/25.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 02:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess all I can do with VA this year is go for the anniversary of the constitution. My only comment about the 25th would be that August 29, Michael Jackson's birthday, would also make an appropriate occasion.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

May 9

Ok, you guys have apparently changed the way Today's Featured Article requests are being handled. I don't know how to do this anymore, and I'm a bit confused as to if I'm able to put in a request now since there are already 5 requests in. My request is for May 9th. It is for the Jason Voorhees article. I think, based on the point system that it's a 5 or more. It was promoted to FA status over 2 years ago (and it's been kept up with pretty well), which gives it 2 points, I believe. It's the 30 year anniversary of the day he was first introduced to the public, so I think that's 2 points. I would say it's more "Vital article" than "Core" or "Basic Info", so that could be 2 points (or 1 if you think it's just basic). I think you could say it's part of the underrepresented "Category:FA-Class horror articles", as there are only 27...so that's another point. I don't believe a horror related article has been featured in a few months, so that could be another 2 points. I think that puts this article at 8 or 9 (depending on how you classify the article, "Basic" or "Vital"). Assistance in what to do, if anything?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The instructions haven't changed, and Vital articles are defined in the instructions (see the link). Categories aren't used to determine Underrepresented. I think it's four points, but Wehwalt is better at points than I am (and there's a pending 8-pointer in the template which would knock it out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Last film article March 26; last fictional character February 26, so no main page representation points no matter how you slice it. It is not a vital article, which is defined, and it is not basic subject matter because a 12 year old is very unlikely to do a school report on Jason Voorhees, and we do not allow basic subject matter for subjects outside normal academic school subjects. I agree with Sandy, two points age, two points anniversary, four points. Sandy, I don't think King George will actually be nominated because that is Dr. Kiernan's article and he dislikes TFA/R. So if it runs, it will be on a direct request to Raul, most likely. You can doublecheck with the good doctor if you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So, I just need to keep checking to see if the queue opens up a slot so I can get the request in officially?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Technically, per the rules you could replace Bride of Frankenstein now, since it has several oppose votes and your article exceeds it in point value. –Grondemar 03:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Points total for David A. Johnston article

Could someone help work out the points total for the David A. Johnston article that was recently promoted to featured article? One of the possibilities (currently an outside possibility) was to have this featured on 18 May 2010, the 30th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in which Johnston died. But I'm having problems working out the points total. So far I have:

  • (1) Age - no points (only promoted recently)
  • (2) Timing - Decennial anniversary (30 years) - 2 points
  • (3) Importance - no points
  • (4) Contributor history at TFA - there were three significant contributors and nominators of the article, of which two I think have had articles they have 'contributed significantly to' appear as TFA. The other editor, me, I'm not sure about. It is quite probable that I have contributed a fair number of edits to articles that have appeared on the Main Page as TFA, but I don't know whether I count as a "significant contributor". Also, there are some articles that appeared at TFA before I really began contributing to those articles (which I presume wouldn't count). But then there are some articles that I help maintain that may have since appeared at TFA, so does that count or not? I have been under the impression for ages that this bit was for people who were first-time nominators or co-nominators at FAC, but it seems the definition of "significant contributor" is wider than I thought. Until I know which article I'm a significant contributor to that has been on the main page before, this will remain unclear - is everyone supposed to know whether or not an article they have contributed significantly to has appeared as TFA? Actually, thinking on it some more, I suspect my work on Anne of Denmark, minor though it was compared to the primary contributor, might disqualify me here.
  • (5) Diversity - no points
  • (6) Main page representation - I looked for geological and volcano topics and science biographies for TFA in the last six months (back to November 18 - the "within two weeks" bit can't be evaluated yet). In those six months, I found these possibilities (though I may have missed some): Earth (April 22); Mendip Hills (March 1); Marjory Stoneman Douglas (January 27); Emery Molyneux (January 15); Elwood Haynes (January 7); William Speirs Bruce (December 3); Death Valley National Park (November 18). None of the geological topics specifically concern volcanoes, so I think things are OK there, and of the biographies the only ones that come close to geology are Douglas (an environmentalist) and Bruce (a naturalist). Both of those are more than three months before 18 May, so if they count then "main page representation" is 1 point, and if they don't, then it is 2 points (not represented in past six months).
  • (7) There is another article that would be eligible for the May 18 spot - Joy Division (a rock band). I am not sure if it has been formally proposed, but the history in the 'pending' template is as follows: [4], [5], [6]. That is four points (promoted over 2 years ago and 30th anniversary of death of one of the band members, and effectively the end of the band). However, Insane Clown Posse (a hip hop band) was TFA on March 28 (within 3 months), and Paranoid Android (an alternative rock song) was TFA on April 29 (within one month), so that might affect things (it looks likely to be between 2 to 4 points). I'll notify User:WesleyDodds about this, as he calculated the points for the 'pending' template for Joy Division.

So, I think that is between 2 and 5 points for the David A. Johnston article depending on what "similar" means and whether the contributor history point counts or not, but if someone could check this, that would be great. Finally, while looking back through some archives, I noticed some discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of featuring articles on people who died on the anniversary of their birth or death (obviously a sensitive time for surviving relatives), so if there are any objections to that, this would be as good a place as any to raise them. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were a "significant contributor" (I read that to mean either a nominator, or in the top four or five in the number of edits (and ignoring silly situations like having only five edits or something), to any TFA, you don't get the point. It doesn't matter whether you requested it, or if Raul took it on his own, or what, so long as your significant involvement in the article predates the TFA date. That is because the idea of this point is to get work by editors whose work has never appeared TFA onto the main page. In other words, it is not a "free point" that everyone gets to use. If all of the conoms' work has appeared main page, you are out of luck. I guess we would have to have a discussion on this point. Note that this is something that gets determined on a case by case basis when it is doubtful. I would tend to count both Sterling and Bruce as similar, because of the fact we cannot infinitely narrow categories, and they are both involved in what I would call earth sciences. As for the rock band, I agree, points will be affected. I will update the template. I would say, probably, three points (anniversary and main page reprsentation), plus a possible fourth point for first time contributor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've just looked at the stats for Anne of Denmark, and I am (to my surprise) second in the list of contributors by edits (though that is 51 edits compared to 532 by the primary author). If my work on that article (or on other ones that have been TFA) qualifies as "significant", then I don't mind, but I would like to know which articles that have been TFA I have done "significant" work on (this is a serious question, as I have no idea where to start in answering that question). Putting that to one side for the moment, it seems the points total is three. What is the next step? Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you nominate. You can do it now or you can wait. It would be considered courteous to wait until Bird clears the page (it will have to within 72 hours) but if someone else grabs the slot first, and it's got 3 or more points, you might have to wait until Raul clears those articles for May 9 and subsequent. As for the "how do you determine" question, you just do it the old fashioned way. You look down the list of articles you've got a lot of edits to, see which ones of those are TFAs and then see where you stand in your contributions to the article. A fairly ugly way of doing it. Wish we had a function that would give a list of such articles when you plug in the name of an editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of waiting for Bird to clear the page as well (why core articles like that don't get top priority anyway, is beyond me). As for trying to find out which articles I have edited most, it seems I crossed a line recently... "Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits" Looks like I will have to manually do that now. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. As to why we don't change the rules, well, we don't get many vital and core nominations, and they usually breeze through. Bird is having problems because a lot of bird-related articles have run recently. It is also very hard to get consensus for a rule change here, and as things have run smoothly here for almost two years, there is no great cry to change the system. It isn't perfect, but it works.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I would not automatically assume that 10% of the edits of Qp10qp on Anne of Denmark makes you a significant contributor-- what kinds of contribs did you make on that article? Occasionally someone with a low edit count is a significant contributor because they work in Sandbox, for example ... unless you made substantial edits to that article, the count is so much lower than Qp10qp's edits that you wouldn't automatically be considered a significant contributor. Also, has Awickert had an article TFA? If not, he may be the contributor that warrants the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If it was a copyedit job, I'd agree, but I'm gathering that matters of substance were added.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It was around May 2007. I was mainly active on the talk page, and it seems my edits were single ones all adding a few links each time (see here). I've changed my mind - I don't think linking counts. But I was pleased to see an article I'd worked on on the main page, I think that is the real point here - the feeling of seeing your work (however little or however much) on the main page, or linked from the main page rather, and worrying over an article that you worked on as it goes through the mill, even if you weren't a significant contributor. I've gone through that process a few times, so I don't mind if that means I'm not eligible for the bonus point. Good point about Awickert - will ask him (he has a few stars, but only for recent stuff that hasn't been on TFA yet). Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I helped Ceranthor with Nevado del Ruiz which I believe (checking - yes) appeard as TFA last year. He made me a co-nom towards the end of that, so I don't get this point. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you get the point for this one; if it were at FAC, I wouldn't consider that a significant contributor (unless someone can show diffs where you substantially added to Qp's work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll take the point then (I was considering reading through all the TFAs since 2005 to now, but gave up on that idea, though if a single-page text listing is available, rather than the template month pages that take longer to load and scan through, I would be prepared to check there is nothing there - such a single-page listing of all previous TFAs might be useful for other things, though). So, after all that, I can go ahead and put David A. Johnston up with 4 points? I see someone else has grabbed the spot vacated by Raul's scheduling of bird for May 4, but it has, er, -1 points. Would it be terribly rude of me to turf that one out? Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) And why has no-one pushed George V forward yet as an 8-pointer for May 6? Maybe it is because you have to write the blurb? Hang on, we have to write main page article blurbs in order to put up requests here? :-(
I just noticed that the Lost article was up there as well. I don't think it would be incredibly rude to replace it, especially as they'll have several other chances in the next 3 weeks to put it back up there, and especially if we leave a note of apology to the user who posted it. But we do need a blurb; I'll see about making it, but at my current rate of Wiki-productivity, I may be beaten to the punch. Awickert (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a go at a blurb, as I have a bit of time here. I'll leave the note of apology as well, once I've done the replacement. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • All done. I think I managed to update everything that needed doing. If not, I'm sure someone will correct things if needed. I think this discussion is done now - many thanks to everyone for all the advice! Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed checking this page for a little while

So I'm probably not going to get May 8 like I wanted, but any pointers on my blurb? I've never written one of these before, so it's probably pretty rough, I don't know.

A man in his late twenties, wearing an orange and blue cycling jersey with white trim
The 2009 Giro d'Italia was the 92nd running of the Giro d'Italia, one of professional cycling's Grand Tours. It commemorated 100 years since the first Giro d'Italia. The race began in Lido di Venezia and concluded, after 21 stages, in Rome. Denis Menchov (pictured), representing the Rabobank team, was the winner of the race. After having taken the race lead with his victory in a long and difficult individual time trial midway through the race, Menchov defended it against eventual runner-up Danilo Di Luca by staying with Di Luca in the race's last stages. Di Luca, riding for LPR Brakes–Farnese Vini, won the points classification in addition to finishing second overall, but tested positive for the banned blood booster continuous erythropoietin receptor activator twice during the race and stands to have those results removed. (more...)
It's not bad. And it's a long race.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe I will get the 8th. Yay! So nevermind. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad I could help :) Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A Question

In a few days I'm going to be putting International Space Station in the pending list for 15 July. I'll be requesting this date as it will mark the 9 year-257 day anniversary of the launch of Expedition 1 to the station, which will mean the ISS takes the record for longest unbroken human presence in space from Mir on this day. My question regards the anniversary - obviously its a relevant date for one point, but I feel that its at least as important a date as a ten-year anniversary (which won't occur until 31 October), and I was wondering what the general consensus is as to how many points I should give it for this. Colds7ream (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You only get one point for that anniversary. It is what the rule says, and while you make an interesting argument, if we went down that road we would get endless arguments about how important an anniversary is.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Colds7ream just changed the category of this article, from one which was not underrepresented (Physics and Astronomy) to one which is (Engineering and Technology), thus gaining a point for the article, may well have to be discussed. That being said, he did give notice of his intent and waited 3 days before doing so. I do not take a position on the move (and did not), I routinely mention matters which affect points here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hey folks, I'm going to be putting International Space Station up for a TFA request for 15 July 2010, given that this is the date that the ISS programme will equal and overtake the record, set by the Mir programme, of the longest unbroken human presence in space, this date being the 9 year, 257 day anniversary of the launch of Expedition 1. I believe the score will be:

  • Date relevant to article topic: 1 point
  • Vital article: 2 points
  • Subject underrepresented at WP:FA: 1 point
  • Within six months of requested date: 2 points Within three months of requested date: 1 point
  • TOTAL: 6 5 points

All comments welcome! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I get five. If we consider the Space station to be an item of technology, there were two from that category in March, so you get only one main page representation point. We've never replaced even a four point article, that should be enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Colds7ream (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The other anniversary would be the 10-year one on November 2, 2010 (10 years of continuously manned operation), but the day it breaks the record is a nice touch and there will likely be more interest in that. Makes me realise that those who know an article are likely to know more about potential anniversaries or significant dates than those who don't. Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is part of what I was thinking in the section below. It could rapidly become tedious to mine other people's articles for significant dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I had thought that some people were stretching rather, to find significant dates (as it turns out, this record is rather notable) and I was kind of thinking that some anniversary dates are so obvious, it would be logical to flag them up at the stage that an article passes FAC, but for obvious reasons people are focused on other matters at that stage of things. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
We are pretty liberal about handing out the one point anniversary. We are less so when it comes to multiple point anniversaries.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Understood. More generally (and going way off topic now), is there a tool where you can hover the mouse cursor over an article and it will tell you all the ArticleHistory stuff, like when it passed FAC and whether it has been on the main page? Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a script that highlights articles that have appeared main page in a different color when you look at WP:FA, check my monobook or search the archives here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I tried but failed (need to learn more about scripts). Will look at the archives as well. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, in a major mix-up, just been checking dates and discovered that this date is in fact wrong - no idea who put it in the lead, but its escaped unnoticed for years - I'll resubmit it later for 23 October. Whoops! :-( Colds7ream (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential anniversaries

I've been perusing some of the articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and have started listing some of the anniversaries here. It may not ultimately be helpful to do this (which is why I've done it in my userspace), but wanted to mention it here in case there is somewhere I could put the list in case it is of use. I may add a couple of upcoming items from that list to the pending template (which looks three months ahead), but won't do that if it might overwhelm things (also, the points total would only be roughly calculated). I do think it would be useful, though, to have a calendar on which potential FA anniversary dates could be placed, or at least to have the most obvious dates noted somewhere. I've also discovered that a fair number of articles don't have any proper anniversary dates, as either they are not that specific, or the dates are not known. Some anniversary dates are also not really suitable for use. Anyway, the list will get outdated soon enough, but as the number of FAs not on the main page grows, it might be helpful to do something like this, or not. So I'm throwing it up here to see what people think. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well ... I guess I'm wondering what the primary purpose of it would be. A source for nominations (most nominators are nomming their own articles or their Wikiproject's)? A resource for Raul? It is not just the additional new FAs that would have to be updated but also those articles no longer eligible either because they run as TFA or go through FAR, and we are short on help and can't expect Raul or the delegates to do it, they have plenty on plate. I don't see any great harm so long as it doesn't become a rival for this page, but I'm wondering why it is helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In my userspace, it is mostly personal interest (and something I may or may not maintain). If I see any particularly obvious ones that are being missed (because people are no longer here), then I may point them out. If no-one else shows any interest, it will stay in my userspace, along with the other stuff I periodically come up with (to the bemusement of many). :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Keep in mind that omissions may be strategic. For example I could have nommed Neville Chamberlain for the anniversary of his death in November, instead I did it for his resignation the anniversary of which falls tomorrow, because I have another article in mind for the fall.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't nominate without the courtesy of telling someone who had been involved with the article. They should have the opportunity to polish it up, and others should do that if the principal contributors are no longer here. What I would do, for major anniveraries, is push them into the pending template and possibly prod someone if I thought they may have forgotten about it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me you have every right to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems an interesting and useful idea to me, though I don't pity you on maintaining it if you should go through that. Multiple anniversaries would also present issues for you though. i.e.: Terry Fox: Sept 1 (30th anniversary of end of his run), Sept 19 (30th Terry Fox Run), June 28, 2011 (30th anniversary of death), Sept 13, 2011 (30th anniversary of first TFR). Resolute 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm really trying to get an idea of the major anniversaries. For the runs, the anniversaries would be more relevant to an article on the run. That was one of the more heart-warming, tragic and inspiring articles I read though! Carcharoth (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is more to choosing TFA than anniversaries (we already give a pretty high priority on this page to assigning TFAs by date significance). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over Final Fantasy

There's some confusion over the anonymous nomination of Final Fantasy (video game) for May 24. This article is only a good article, not a featured article. However, Final Fantasy, about the entire series, is a featured article. The anon may have meant to nominate that article instead. –Grondemar 00:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We're service oriented here. Let's assume he meant the series and see where it goes!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
We need to rewrite the blurb then, since it talks about the first game and not the series. I'm OK with assuming the series, although I already asked the IP to come here and clarify. –Grondemar 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
We can always take it down if there's he contradicts it. And this slot has been sitting open for a day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
As the one who initially removed this (and reverted), I agree with AGF-ing and assuming they meant the series. My heart sinks slightly at the thought of another videogame TFA after the recent glut, but at least a franchise is different to a game, I suppose. Presumably it loses something to that Star Wars game a few days back? – iridescent 00:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. Is a "media franchise" similar to a video game?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say "yes" in this particular case, since it's essentially a videogame franchise that happens to have some movie spinoffs, but I'd leave it to others to judge. – iridescent 01:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, deduct three points, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
As the suggester i was was nominating The Game not the series 157.157.211.176 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
As the game is not a featured article, it is not eligible to run on the main page. Perhaps you could help improve that article?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Early warning: Gustav Mahler

7 July sees the 150th anniversary of Gustav Mahler's birth. The article has recently become featured with a view to TFA on the appropriate date. Now, there may be other anniversaries on that date that outrank Mahler (London bombings 2005?), but please bear him in mind. I've no idea how many points this nom will garner, but no doubt a wise head will tell me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, four for the 150th, of course. Last composer was in March, so chance at a 5th there. I think Mahler is a little advanced to be basic subject matter, but others who have been a 12 year old more recently than me may differ.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Old and new ships

I added Mary Rose to the template for July 19, but I'm not sure exactly how to deal with certain points.

There always seems to be a steady stream of modern warships articles coming out of WP:MILHIST and HMAS Melbourne (R21) (February 10) and SMS Moltke (1910) (April 7) are TFAs that have been on the mainpage within the past six and three months, respectively. Is the article on the Mary Rose dissimilar enough to articles on 20th century warships to merit another two points?

Also, would it matter that it's mainly an archaeological topic? As far as I'm concerned, it has virtually nothing in common with all but a handful of the articles in "Art, architecture and archaeology". It seems to me as if archeology has to some extent been dumped there because of convenience (and because of a lack of suitable articles). We have only a handful of FAs on archaeology at the moment, so unless the underrepresentation point is given only for belonging to a certain FA category, it should get an extra point there as well.

Peter Isotalo 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that it is probably similar. If the article was Recovery and study of the Mary Rose, I might feel differently. But as the article is both about Mary Rose as ship and as archeological project, I think it's similar to the ships that slide down the MilHist slipways.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm kinda dubious about your claim for basic subject matter points. It is possible that the Mary Rose is studied by British 12 year olds, but it would be helpful if you could, say, link to lesson plans for that age group which deals with the ship.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's covered by Key Stage 2 (ages 7–11) of the National Curriculum in England and Wales,[7][8] and pretty much every English primary schoolchild gets taken there at some point (30,000 a year if their stats are right). I'd agree with "basic subject matter" in this case; the Mary Rose has the same kind of "national historic artefact" status in England that the Liberty Bell has in the US. – iridescent 14:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I remember learning about the Mary Rose at that age. It was the only bit of Tudor history that stayed with me... Not that anecdotal evidence is needed, as Iridescent has linked to something that looks like a current curriculum statement including this topic. This article was also on the list I half-started recently, and I was going to point this anniversary out if no-one else did. The article is about 1/3 archaeology, and most of the stories of the ships that slide down the MilHist slipways end at the point that they sink or are scuttled. Only a few end up as floating museums or shipwrecks raised after more than 400 years on the bottom of the sea, so I'd support this being given some consideration in that regard (either by relaxing the 'similar' criteria, or by allowing the 'underrepresented' criteria). But really, the points will need to be reassessed closer to the time (it is still two months to go). Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We can certainly discuss it. I'm sold on the basic subject matter, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who writes about modern steel warships (not those silly wooden ones :P), writing about them or writing about Mary Rose is sort of like the difference between tennis and racquetball. You need the same set of basic skills and some sort of racquet, but beyond that it is a vastly different game. The career of MR is probably similar to some of the other ships that have sailed through here, but I think that the real story in MR is in the raising and preservation, which is a topic that is vastly different from the 'normal' ship articles.
I would support an extra point, especially given that it was categorized in AA&A at WP:FA. Just my two cents at 4:30am...the sun is rising and I'm tired, so forgive me if anything is confusing—I'll revisit this tomorrow with a clearer head. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll come back later and see if the article can be nudged in with an extra point sometime after June 19.
Peter Isotalo 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible May 22

I am contemplating nominating BP Pedestrian Bridge for May 22. Do bridges count as the same as buildings as far as underrepresented topics goes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh that'll be a fun TFA given recent events, I'd support it though I suspect many trolls will see as another attempt to give a good impression of the company. Gnangarra 07:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Even though BP Pedestrian Bridge isn't actually listed in that section at WP:FA for some reason, I'd have thought it would be better off classed with the highways etc under "transport" (where Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, Cogan House Covered Bridge, Chelsea Bridge etc already are). It may be pedestrian rather than highway, but it's still something people use to get from one place to another. AFAIK there haven't been any roads or trains for a while, so it wouldn't lose any points from being moved there. – iridescent 08:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Iridescent, bridges are a means of transport, like a highway or road.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say that the official opening on 16 July would make more sense, but I see that several items within Chicago's Millennium Park are featured articles and have anniversaries falling in or around July. The Crown Fountain was dedicated on 24 July and the McDonald's Cycle Center was opened on 19 July, though the McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink differs in that it was opened on 20 December. However, the Jay Pritzker Pavilion appeared on the Main Page on 3 April 2010. Personally, I'd put the BP Pedestrian Bridge with all the other "Millennium Park" stuff as architectural stuff. Given that the designers failed to work out that the bridge would end up being closed in the winter because rock salt couldn't be used to melt the snow for fear of affecting the wooden planks, I'd say it counts as architectural aesthetics, rather than transport functionality. Also, it being less than three months since the last "Millennium Park" feature, I'd say it loses 2 points there. Tony did mention this in his nomination on the requests page when mentioning the featured topic (the other articles being Cloud Gate and McDonald's Cycle Center), so I'll expand on that there and point back here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I misread the criteria and have struck part of the above and on the main page. Sorry about that! Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost finale and proposal to revise May 24 TFA

Since Lost is ending this Sunday on May 23 and the Lost Wikiproject has done a great job generating creating content for wikipedia, I was wondering whether we could make a quick change to the TFA for May 24. (I would have done May 23 but that is the 100 year anniversary of the birth of Margaret Fuller, which seems pretty important, but May 24 is the Victoria Cross, which could easily be pushed back until the 25). I would propose doing The Beginning of the End (Lost) or Greatest Hits (Lost) since they seem to have good titles for the ending of the series and have not been featured on the main page. Any thoughts on this proposal? Remember (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think this would work well, because I believe that because of the way the change in the TFA works, the Lost TFA would appear on the main page at the same time that the finale is being broadcast. Remember (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Victoria Cross was chosen for May 24th because it happens to be Victoria Day, so there is a tenuous correlation there. María (habla conmigo) 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That is pretty tenuous (i.e., the Victoria Cross is named for Queen Victoria who also happens to have a day named after her in Canada called Victoria Day and therefore the Victoria Cross should appear on the same day as the Victoria Day). Don't get me wrong, it makes sense to have it on that day, but I think that there is a strong argument to be made that featuring a Lost article on the time of the Lost series finale has much more resonance than featuring a military award on a day that has a celebration named after military award's namesake. Remember (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Raul has selected the award, you really need to talk to him if you seek to have it changed. TFA/R's part in the process for May 24 has ended.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I figured this was the most open way to communicate to Raul (since I thought switching things behind the scenes would go over poorly). Raul does watch this page, correct? Remember (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
He may well do, but he won't necessarily be checking it for comments such as this. Your best bet is to go direct to his talk page, but bear in mind User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#The_queue_is_not_plastic. BencherliteTalk 16:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have left a message on his talk page. I hope it works out, but if it doesn't I will understand (and try to be more timely with my ideas in the future). Remember (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Going directly to Raul's talk page is accepted. When the modern process began, about two years ago, people were very uncertain about that, but he has not taken umbrage, and neither do the TFA/R regulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Using video for lede image?

Are there any guidelines about using video for the lede "image" of a TFA? Specifically, I am thinking of using File:Ürümqi riots video.ogv (compressed to 120px) for the nomination of July 2009 Ürümqi riots. I looked through the archives but couldn't find any previous discussion of this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no guidelines on the subject. Nom it that way and I guess the community would have a discussion if anyone objected. I believe we had an audio clip once for a classical music piece as the lead "image".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK has used short videos on several occasions, so there is a precedent for allowing them on the Main page. See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_55#Videos_instead_of_photos.3F for the past discussion and some issues to consider. --Allen3 talk 16:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FFA -> FA

Ernest Hemingway was an FA for 11 months and then demoted. It has been repromoted. He will have served over 12 months as an FA at the time of his eligible dates even though only two since being repromoted. Does he get credit for over a year as an FA or just 2 months.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the clock resets to zero on demotion and only starts again once re-promoted. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
That might make sense, but is there a precedent for FFA nominations in the point system TFA era?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of any, but Wehwalt is the real historian of this page. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It is possible, but none have been mentioned as such. There are only 36 repromoted FFAs, it should be possible to manually check (even easier, don't bother with Gough Whitlam, which was recently repromoted but which was TFA in 2004). I agree, the clock resets to zero.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Auto update tallies

How about we have a bot update the support and oppose tallies? SoxBot (talk · contribs) updates the RfA tally at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship every 30 minutes. We could have the same here. What do you all think? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 01:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or do away with them; TonyTheTiger added them, but no one regularly updates them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Having a bot do the updating makes a lot of sense, actually. No complaints here. Jonyungk (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I would support having a bot correct the tallies as needed. –Grondemar 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I will submit a bot request. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating - request for clarification

I've had two articles on the main page before, but they were selected rather than nominated, so I'm a bit unclear of the process and wary of bumping someone. I have a proposed nomination for Central London Railway on 27 June which should be worth 4 points (2 for 110th anniversary of the official opening in 1900 + 2 1 for no similar article in six three months). If I'm reading the instructions, correctly, I could replace the D&D Expedition to the Barrier Peaks nomination, but would this mean that it lost out on a chance on the main page? I'd quite like to see it there as I remember playing this module back in the early 80s. --DavidCane (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checked again, and City and South London Railway was on the main page on 21 January not 21 December as I had remembered. I could also nominate for 30 July, because that is when the CLR opened to the public, which would get four points. Question remains however. --DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The expedition could be returned to the page. Your article looks like 3 pts to me. It doesn't matter that your TFAs were selected rather than nominated, but congrats on having so many FAs and TFAs!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Main page representation penalties

I've been thinking that the penalties assigned for main page overrepresentation for a subject are perhaps too severe. I understand the purpose of the penalties is to encourage a diverse selection of articles on the Main Page and to discourage a single topic such as video games from dominating the TFA space. However, the current penalties effectively neutralize any anniversary short of 50 or 100 years, occasions that obviously come around very rarely for an article. Since in many cases Raul seems to select articles without regard to future article requests, this penalizes article authors looking forward to an anniversary through no fault of their own.

I suggest modifying the current penalties to as follows:

  • Within one week: -3 points
  • Within two weeks: -2 points
  • Within one month: -1 point

Retaining the -3 penalty for articles within one week will prevent the Main Page from being flooded by a single subject. The reduced penalties for two weeks and one month will increase the chance for anniversary articles to be featured on the Main Page while still preventing overrepresentation of any specific subject.

Thoughts? –Grondemar 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds like a very fair compromise. Jonyungk (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I would probably oppose right now. It's worked reasonably well for two years. I would suggest rather keeping an eye on upcoming articles and approaching Raul if there is something likely to interfere with a nom. He's been very willing to work with people. I really think this proposal would overbalance in favor of anniversary, which are very popular on this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder too - for instance Splendid_Fairywren got 34.5k hits on th mainpage, but Superb_Fairywren got 18.7k hits two months later. They have similar pics and content, and it makes me wonder about viewer fatigue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: Can anyone else recall two similar articles in quick succession worth checking? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station

Why has the ISS been scheduled for June 16? That date has nothing to do with the station! Colds7ream (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would leave a message on Raul's talk page (User talk:Raul654) if you were planning to run it on a specific date. He's normally amicable with requests like those. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Dates are not the only concern in scheduling TFAs-- pls read the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Vital articles

The organization of vital articles seems to have been revamped over the last year of so. There are now 4 levels of vital articles. I'd always thought VA as referred to here was the list of 1,000 "most important" articles. Level 4 is for 10,000 articles - but has only been populated with 3,000 or 4,000 so far. BTW Michael Jackson is level 4 VA. Smallbones (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Intent of vital articles rule was to have top thousand. Propose amend rules to add "top level" before words "Vital article". MJ to be grandfathered.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, I just wandered in here, but I would like to point out that level 1 only has ten articles. Level 2 has 100 and level 3 has 1,000. If you want to give two points for the 1,000 most important articles, the two-point bonus should be for level-3 vital articles. A. Parrot (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes further clarification is necessary on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Make it "level 1, 2, or 3 vital article"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A note on the original intent (since I'm the one who first wrote that rule) - I didn't think 1000 was a particularly essential number. In fact, I always felt it was a tad low. I'd be fine with expanding it to 5000. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support 1, 2 and 3, but I would not support 1, 2, 3 and 4 so let's be clear on what we are proposing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Support. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Suport as nom. Jonyungk (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support as "level 1, 2, or 3 vital article" Level 4 can certainly get Basic Subject Matter point. Smallbones (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support - even if lvl 4 is not as vital, they're still pretty core material. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Oppose

  1. I know it opens a can of worms, but I'd be inclined to allow more wiggle room, as the revamped list seems very arbitrary. The level 3/level 4 split makes some very odd calls (Wind power and Tropical cyclone but not Wind itself? Pachacuti a more significant leader than Julius Caesar? Revolutions of 1989 but no Russian Revolution itself? Republic of Ireland more significant than Portugal?) I know it makes the whole thing more prone to arguments, but I'd be more inclined to have a vague "demonstrate that this topic is widely considered important" policy as we do with basic subject matter, rather than strict compliance to The List, unless someone can really explain why Louis Armstrong and Edgar Allan Poe get berths on the ark but not Michael Jackson and Agatha Christie, or what Elizabeth I of England is doing on there. – iridescent 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Uh, Louis Armstrong and Edgar Allan Poe are originals - you might as well say that Armstrong invented 20th century jazz and that Poe invented the detective story and the horror story, Jackson and Christie are creative in their own way, but many might say commercialized copycats. I realize tastes differ, but true originality matters on a list of 1,000. Smallbones (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Given Raul's comments above and the fact it is 4-2 in favor, I think this is "no consensus" and we move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Resolved

I see that July 5 has The Open Boat scheduled. Is there a special date connection for this or is it something that can be moved? I nominated July 2009 Ürümqi riots for this date and it's an anniversary; the nomination was removed before anyone could comment. Should I put it back on TFA/R, leave a message directly with Raul, just this message here, or what? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Open Boat is June 5.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my bad! embarrassed rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you are concerned about this running. My advice is to watchlist the TFA for July 1, so you'll see when Raul schedules an article for that date, and then immediately insert your blurb. If that fails, I suggest asking Raul on his talk page, he has been very accommodating to people with similar concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Three-in-One?

26 July is the 100th anniversary of the formation of the London Electric Railway (LER) from three of London's tube railways, the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway, the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway and the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. The LER was mainly an administrative creation at first so there is currently no LER article (although I am working on an improvement of the article it redirects to), but the articles on the three constituent companies are all Featured Articles. Is it possible to propose a triple nomination with an appropriately worded TFA text tying the group together? If it is, I make the total of points 10 (6 points for 100th anniversary, 1 point each for two of the articles being over a year since promotion and 2 points for no similar article in six months). --DavidCane (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Raul indicated at the time of the Obama/McCain double that he would not consider a double TFA, and I think that probably includes other multiples.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he means one nomination/blurb but three bolded articles, which would be different than the Obama/McCain double blurb. Still unprecedented, though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you do a draft of what you're talking about, David? Either here or in your sandbox with a link posted here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
That would still be a triple blurb, and Raul has said he will not do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Not having seem anything like it before, I suspected that would be the answer, but thought it was worth asking.--DavidCane (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Replacement

I'd like to add a request for Mary Rose for July 19, and I believe it should be assigned 3-4 points per this discussion. I'm hesitant to replace Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (2 pts) since it has 9 support votes, though, and I'm unsure if it would actually get more points than Degrassi: The Next Generation. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, though, so I'll check here first.

Peter Isotalo 09:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Same advice as above, there will be multiple vacancies in the next ten days or so as Raul schedules, your article is four weeks away, and most voting on an article takes place within the first few days it is listed. Suggest waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Waiting commencing.
Peter Isotalo 10:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup

I am surprised that nobody brought the issue yet. There should be articles scheduled for the opening of the second-largest-sports-even-behind-summer-olympics and for the final on June 11 and July 11. There have been such nominations for the Winter Olympics, which are significantly less watched than The World Cup. 18.111.7.117 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, both FIFA World Cup and 1930 FIFA World Cup are FAs. 18.111.7.117 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Nom away.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
FIFA World Cup was already TFA, as was Association Football, so you're limited to 1930 FIFA World Cup; I'd oppose going with any one national team or single player, for (I hope) obvious reasons. Personally, I'd like to see Roy of the Rovers but I'm not sure how many would get the joke. – iridescent 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
What about the host nation or defending champion team or players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
South Africa and Italy respectively; I'm not aware of any FA-class articles on either. These are what we have to choose from; unsurprisingly, they're heavily skewed towards English-speaking countries where football/soccer is the major sport. (Basically, England and Scotland.) – iridescent 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Roy of the Rovers would be an excellent choice! Perhaps the 1930 FIFA World Cup on the first day of the tournament, and Roy of the Rovers on the day of the final? Scotland national football team is also an FA, but Scotland didn't qualify... Looking at WP:SAFRICA, there doesn't appear to be an obvious FA (or FFA, or GA) to use - South Africa, Cape Town and Johannesburg have all been TFA. BencherliteTalk 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Roy of the Rovers, just because it needs a massive cleanup. Whole sections are lacking references. I agree 1930 World Cup should appear on either the first day of the tournament or the final. –Grondemar 10:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
After consideration I decided to list Roy of the Rovers at FAR to help get it cleaned up before the World Cup final. Any comments or review would certainly be appreciated. –Grondemar 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Update & question

Per this discussion, Raul suggests nominating it at TFAR to catch the opening of the tournament (June 11); however, there's no request that will expire before then and free up a slot and if I were the nominator of Virginia I'd be fuming if it were knocked off at the last minute to make way for this, after notching up 9 supports. Is there any protocol for a "temporary" removal of Virginia (or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks if that's judged to be lower pointage) to make way for the World Cup article, on the understanding that the nomination will be restored intact on the 12th, or does that smack too much of gaming-the-system? – iridescent 19:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I came on here to ask an identical question. At a glance I think the 1930 World Cup might score 3 or 4 points, and if so it would knock off Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. There's no way that deserves to be removed, but it's unlikely that an article related to the World Cup—watched by somewhere between 700 million and 1.3 billion people depending on the source—isn't going to be nominated before July 6th.WFCforLife (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Cup runs until what, the 11th of July? By that time, three of the nominees will be gone, plus the nonspecific. Plenty of time. Have patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I am. Provided that someone writes a blurb, for a World Cup article not to go up during the World Cup would probably require a conscious effort to block it. I'm simply highlighting a counterintuitive quirk in the system that an article such as Barrier Peaks could be removed at one fell swoop. As an outsider it seems strange. WFCforLife (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think 1930 FIFA World Cup would only have 2 or 3 points. I've counted the 8 July article 2009 Giro d'Italia as a similar article, so no points there. So it would only knock of Great Barrier Expedition if contributor history could be applied to it. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A complaint about a forthcoming TFA

Those who watch this page may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Peerage privilege, in particular the suggestion that "old" FAs should not be scheduled "without some sort of review to confirm current quality". BencherliteTalk 18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sixth slot

I'm finding that I'm often pressed for time when scheduling FAs and in those situations, I'd like a pre-written FA blurb that I can just paste in. What I'd like to do is add a sixth slot to this page, to hold requests that are not date specific. (All the other point totals would apply, except the date-related points.) I imagine that one would cycle pretty frequently. What does everyone think? Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

as you like. A dated request could not bump an undated one nor visa versa?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A dated request *could not* go into the sixth slot. It is only for non-dated requests, for me to schedule for any date I want. Raul654 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It would need clear rules on what constitutes "non-dated". There are a fair few "we know he was born in July 1810 but don't know the exact date" situations, where there's strong date significance but no true anniversary; someone would need to decide how things like that are treated. – iridescent 19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're overthinking this one. Just go with the simplest rule: articles put into the sixth slot are not eligible for any date connection points at all, and I may be schedule them for any date. If an article with a date connection also happens to end up in the sixth slot (because it's got enough points for other reasons) fine, but they don't get any points for the date connection and may be scheduled for a date other than the one the author prefers. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that needs to be spelled out explicitly. You've been around WP long enough to know that if there's any ambiguity in a policy, someone will try to game it. – iridescent 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sounds sensible. Alternatively (or additionally) we could have a repository of draft TFA blurbs in a centralised location: I remember Wehwalt mentioning that he, like I, had a few hanging about in userspace, so I've started Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Blurbs on what we've got between us (hope you don't mind, Wehwalt). If no-one thinks it's useful, I'll get rid of it. BencherliteTalk 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have several concerns with a blurbs suggestion page so that it doesn't turn into the monstrosity that was the old requests page:
  • There has to be some upper size limit to the page so it doesn't grow into a multi-megabyte behemoth (like the old requests page). Pages that run multiple megabytes tend to be clucky to edit even on my cable modem, let alone for people who have a dial up.
  • People who post there have to understand that they are posting posting blurb suggestions, not main page requests. The difference being that I make a reasonable effort to get requests up on the main page in a timely fashion; I make absolutely no promise to get the blurb suggestions up, or that they could sit on that page for months or years before I do.
  • Related to the above -- because blurbs can sit idle for so long, some kind of maintence is necessary to make sure the article doesn't stray too far from the blurb suggestion. Text can get changed; pictures get moved or deleted; articles get defeatured, etc.
If my concerns were properly addressed, I'd be cool with a trial run. Raul654 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
PS - also, my preference would be to keep all of the blurb suggestions on this page, rather than putting them on (yet another) FA related page. Raul654 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
if it is one, yes, keep it here. If we are suggesting Raul help himself from a buffet, best to have another page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My enthusiasm was running ahead of me (particularly as I've not been around long enough to know about the out-of-control situation with the "old requests page"), so I've deleted it. BencherliteTalk 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I will draft some rules for community comment and Raul's decision within 48 hours. My computer is in the shop and it is hard to edit via iPad.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
similarity deductions will have to be a bit arbitrary given there's no specific date--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft rule on "sixth spot": article

Here's what I wrote up for what I understood was being proposed:

Nonspecific date article

The Featured Article Director, User:Raul654 has instituted a trial program for a sixth proposed TFA. The sixth article is not proposed for a specific date, but instead may be used by the Director on a date which he determines. The proposed TFA may be replaced by an article which has a higher number of points, according to the following rules:

  1. Points will be calculated per the usual (above) system, without including the points for "Timing".
  2. For purposes of similarity and main page representation, the article will be deemed nominated for the first seven days with no scheduled TFA, with points fixed (they will not change) as of the first date of that period. If the Director does not schedule the proposed article within this timeframe, it will be deemed rejected, and may be replaced by any eligible article, regardless of points.
  3. Community members may support or oppose, as they do for other nominations.

How does that look?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be easier (for the purpose of calculating points), just to assume that Raul would run it within a week? He did say they would turn over often. It would be easier to assign points if we had some underlying assumption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
We can do it any way. It is obviously purely arbitrary. I took the fancy approach. But your approach could lead to difficulties if a nom happened right after Raul scheduled 14 days in preparation for a trip. Let's say it is nommed September 1 (we are scheduled through the 15th) and so we deem it points for September 8. However, September 10 is an obviously similar article. What then?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A week after first opening, not a week from current day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Subject to deductions if a similar article runs, I think?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Right (I think). Unless Raul disagrees, I would suggest re-wording the proposal to incorporate normal points calculations, on the assumption that the article would run within the first unscheduled week. Then, if Raul doesn't run it within the first open week, points can change during that week. That would make the whole blurb simpler, since points calculations will be as all other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Except for anniversary points, which have no relevance here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As, yes (missed that!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting all balled up in the wording; is it OK with you if I tweak it here, and you can revert me if I mangle it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Lawyer gone wild.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do lawyers do that? I've added my tweaks-- feel free to change or revert. I thought some of it was redundant, since we've already said it follows usual page procedures, and attempted to shorten the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Not often. I've made a couple of clarifications, see if they are OK with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Let's see what Raul says, and if he's on board, then perhaps we can collapse this side discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who is better at page formatting than me implement it, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't get to it 'til tonight-- unless someone else does it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Arrrrgh, no one has done this, so I'll give it a try now. Will advise when I think I'm done, so others can tweak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd add "4. Articles without date points may still be nominated for the other 5 slots." Maybe it goes without saying, and they will of course have a great disadvantage there, but it has happened before. BTW if this works well, why not have another undated slot (the 7th slot), but I'm getting ahead of myself. Smallbones (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW if this works well, why not have another undated slot (the 7th slot) - if this does work well, that is entirely possible. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's my thought that the additional slot is a cautious thumbs up to the maturity and good work that has been seen on this page over the past 20 months or so. Compare with Raul's uneasy comments about TFA/R in his TFA notes. Perhaps combine 4 with one of the others? Short enough after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you need to have an expiration policy (say 21 days). If an article is not scheduled within 21 days of being nominated for the no date slot, it should be replaced. I am not sure what proportion of articles have no clear date, but you might want to think of more than one nominee at a time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the second sentence of Rule 2 inadequate? It gives a week, if Raul hasn't run it by then, he doesn't want to and we axe it and put in another.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I was multitasking (playing online poker) while responding. Yes. That is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When we say "undated" we really mean unspecificdated. Many articles I do have a good 'range' but no date, e.g. Sirius has a heliacal rising some time in mid-July. September/October is Magpie season, when the critters swoop on postmen and schoolchildren around the country etc. etc. Yeah, I like this idea :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why has no one nominated one yet? Raul654 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm holding off on one article for a specific date, and the rest of my FAs are hockey related and counterintuitive to post in the off-season? ;o) I think you may find the slot goes a little underused, as the people watching this page generally fall into two categories: those that enjoy being a part of the process but are not necessarily looking to promote their own work, and those who are looking to request their article for a specific date. It will be a bit before people catch on to the idea of date agnostic requests. Resolute 02:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree generally, it will take a few days to catch on. I don't have any of mine that I feel right nomming for a nonspecific date at this time for various reasons, and if I start taking other people's than I'm stepping on their toes and possibly Raul's as well. If nothing happens by the weekend I will go out and put together a few blurbs to have in reserve and insert them as needed, but it seems a bad idea to make that the first resort, not the last. Also, it is a low traffic time of year, all the students are getting out for the summer, etc etc. Is the World Cup having an impact?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Would a rule to the effect of "Articles that are deemed rejected by rule may not be renominated for 3 months" be appropriate? I could imagine a high-point article getting repeatedly nominated over worthy competition. --66.194.74.18 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It could happen, but if Raul rejects an article, I think the nominator is going to take some time to think about things. Especially if it happens twice. It will work itself out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic idea

I have to say, the "nonspecific date" idea was a fantastic idea, and it's working well so far! I say, keep it up for as long as it remains practical and workable. BOZ (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Compare Raul's 2007 comments in his notes on TFA with his expression of confidence by letting us have a sixth slot. It's a credit to editors here for working together so well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree (and credit to you as well, Wehwalt, for keeping close tabs on this page). The only issue I see going forward with the possibility of adding a seventh slot is that the non-specific date selections may alter the points on the specific date proposals, which could destabilize the page-- we need to see how that shakes out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sandy, but everyone shares the credit. Remember when all five articles had "points disputed" tags? I think we've all learned a bit since then. I agree, let's give it some time and evaluate how this goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unused

I find it bewildering that the nonspecific slot has been sitting unused for days at a time (especially when the requests that have gone there have gone up in extremely short order). Why is nobody using it? Raul654 (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is just a slow time of year, especially with World Cup. It's taking people a little while to realize that they can really fast track their articles to the main page. Be patient. If you want, the regulars can go out scouting for articles and do some nominating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crown Fountain similarity points

Crown Fountain is a sculpture grouped in Art, architecture and archaeology. Although there have been a few buildings (or schools) recently, such as Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Temple Sinai (Oakland, California) and The Avery Coonley School and an archeological site (Quiriguá). The last work of art is Cloud Gate (not counting music as art to the exclusion of We Are the World). Does this get a similarity point?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is how people feel about it, is it a work of art or a work of architecture?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't architecture usually require at least a nominal type of practical usage as a building?
Peter Isotalo 08:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, war memorials and such would be considered as architecture but don't serve a purpose as a building. I'd consider the fountain as art rather than architecture, personally. – iridescent 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

is this a joke?

So the second-most-watched-event-on-Earth is not going to get any TFA cover? I raised this issue before the cup began, and though it remained a bit in limbo, it appeared to be some consensus about putting 1930 FIFA World Cup up on the final day, which is rapidly approaching: July 11. All good until I saw that this date is probably going to be occupied by some other article...

I am asking this again: is this a bad joke? 18.111.54.113 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Roy of the Rovers is not totally irrelevant. However, if you really want the 1930 article for that date you should probably bring it up on the TFAR page itself. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

July 11 (2)

alt = Poster in Art Deco style, depicting a simplified figure of a goalkeeper making a save in its upper half. The lower half contains writing in a heavily stylised font: "1er Campeonato Mundial de Futbol" in black, and "Uruguay 1930 Montevideo 15 Julio Agosto 15" in white and orange.
alt = Poster in Art Deco style, depicting a simplified figure of a goalkeeper making a save in its upper half. The lower half contains writing in a heavily stylised font: "1er Campeonato Mundial de Futbol" in black, and "Uruguay 1930 Montevideo 15 Julio Agosto 15" in white and orange.
The 1930 FIFA World Cup was the inaugural world championship for international association football teams – the FIFA World Cup. It was played in Uruguay from 13 July to 30 July. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) selected Uruguay as host nation as the country would be celebrating the centenary of its independence, and the Uruguay national football team had successfully retained their football title at the 1928 Summer Olympics. All matches were played in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo, the majority at the Estadio Centenario, which was built for the tournament. Thirteen teams, seven from South America, four from Europe and two from North America entered the tournament. The teams were divided into four groups, with the winner of each group progressing to the semi-finals. Lucien Laurent of France scored the first goal in World Cup history. Argentina, Uruguay, the USA and Yugoslavia each won their respective groups to qualify for the semi-finals. In the final, hosts and pre-tournament favourites Uruguay defeated Argentina 4–2 in front of a crowd of 93,000 people, and became the first nation to win a World Cup.(more...)

Per Wehwalt, here is a blurb for 1930 FIFA World Cup in case Raul wants to use it for July 11. The article should be at least two points due to date significance (70th 80th anniversary). Jonyungk (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you mean 80th anniversary (not that it makes a difference)? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I do. Thanks—didn't mean to shave off a decade. Jonyungk (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that poster really in the public domain? I note the licensing tag refers to the European Union, but the tournament took place in Uruguay. If Uruguay had made the final I would agree that this article would be the best to run, but since they lost I'd prefer to save this article for the future. –Grondemar 02:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the 80th anniversary be July 13? BOZ (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

First attempt...

I'm a little confused by the rules, sorry. I'd like to propose the following:

West front entrance of St. Michael's Cathedral, in Qingdao, China.

St. Michael's Cathedral is a Catholic church in Qingdao (formerly Tsingtao), Shandong Province, China; it is also the seat of the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Qingdao. It is located in the oldest part of Qingdao, at 15 Zhejiang Road, on the east side of Zhongshan Road in Shinan District. Built by German missionaries, the cathedral stands at the top of a hill in the center of the old German-built part of the city. It is the largest example of Romanesque Revival architecture in the province, resembling a German cathedral of the 12th century. St. Michael's Cathedral is the product of a strong German presence in Shandong Province in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the mid-19th century the European powers forcibly opened China to foreign trade. The Divine Word Missionaries built a church in the Jiaozhou Bay concession in Shandong in 1902, and in 1934 erected the cathedral, which remained nominally under their administration until 1964. In 1942 it came under the control of the Japanese Army, returning to Chinese control when the Japanese left Qingdao in 1945. In the early 1950s, all foreign missionaries, including the Bishop of Qingdao, were either imprisoned or expelled from China, and during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) the cathedral was defaced and abandoned. In 1981, it was repaired by the government and reopened for services, and in 1992 it was listed as a Provincial Historic Building by the government of Shandong Province.(more...)

3 points - I'm the only significant contributor (so far), and have not had anything featured before (1 point), and also there has not been a similar article in six months (2 points). Do I just replace a 2 point article on the project page now? Or wait for a later date (say August 8)? Thanks in advance for guidance. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_10&oldid=1228209365"