Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Formatting request

Could people posting suggestions here please use the same formatting that is used in the main page blurbs? That is to say, (1) remove all endlines, (2) remove all ref tags (3) link the title to the article (4) remove all extraneous bolding (5) trim birth/death dates down to year only (6) remove all alternate names (7) trim down the length to roughly 1200 characters or less. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

There's a Featured Article I'd like to suggest for a specific date, but I've no idea how and this page isn't all that helpful on how to do so. Can anyone offer some help? The Clawed One (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one and what date? I'd be happy to estimate the points for you, and tell you how to nominate. And please be sure (it will say near the top of the talk page) that the article hasn't already run.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. The 10th anniversary of the game's release will be August 16th, the date I was going to nominate it for. Ah, also, I'm a very significant contributor the article, the article was promoted in May of this year, and the last time I suggested an FA for a date was in 2007 or before (not sure precisely when, it's been a while though). Hope all that helps. The Clawed One (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Has an FA that you've been a significant contributor to appeared main page?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I've edited a few FAs before they were featured, but not in any significant way. The Clawed One (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be you get two points for a 10th anniversary, one for first TFA for you, three points total. What you need to do is make up a "blurb", such as you see on the request page. Simplest simply to cut and paste text from your article's lede into the format you see there, just use the same markup and delete the old text and save your effort to your sandbox. When you are ready, you can nominate by adding it to the TFA/R page. If you need help making the blurb, let me know. You are free to nominate any time that there is a vacancy, a lower point article, or an article that has attracted over 50 percent opposes on the nominations page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much! The Clawed One (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

South Side (Chicago)

I had conservatively estimated that South Side (Chicago) was worth 1 point on August 8th, the date of the Bud Billiken Parade. Can you tell me what the value of Washington, D.C. was on the date of the Inauguration of Barack Obama? It seems like this might be date relevant since the parade is mentioned in the article. Are presidential inaugurations even mentioned in the DC article? Would you say the date is not relevant for Pasadena, CA if it were a FA on the date of a Tournament of Roses Parade or Manhattan or Broadway Avenue if they were FAs on the date of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Are your questions rhetorical? You are a more experienced Wikipedian than I and surely know how to check the history and find out when we ran Washington DC. I get your point generally, and I would say that the Presidential Inauguration in Washington DC is of somewhat greater note than a parade on the South Side of Chicago. The eyes of the world were focused on 20001 on that day. They are not focused on 606whatever on August 8. I would not give a point to Manhattan on Thanksgiving Day. I'd say the South Side of Chicago would be a great article to run if the White Sox (ever) made the World Series again. Pasadena on New Years Day is tricker, I'd really want to give it some thought. I don't have anything against the article, I just think it shouldn't get a date relevance point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. DC it seems was given a point for date relevance for a subject not even mentioned in its article. I thought there was a general rule about finding the subject in the article. I meant Broadway (New York City) BTW. I just did a page move so that Broadway Avenue (Saskatoon) is not the main Broadway Avenue. Surely on Thanksgiving such an article would be given a high priority if it were FA even though the Macy's parade is not as large as the Bud Billiken Parade. Maybe even Midtown Manhattan or Upper West Side would be date-relevant on Thanksgiving since the parade runs through these two areas on Broadway. I guess the fairer comparison would be if Midtown Manhattan and Upper West Side were one article and the Macy's parade fell on a day that is not important to the rest of the nation but was as important a parade as it is, would that article have a high priority on that day. That is sort of what we have here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3)Is this Chicago thingie on national TV even in the three network era, part of one of the most beloved Christmas movies of all time? I'm allergic to straw, Tony.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In truth, I would even give Manhattan priority on Puerto Rican Day Parade. That thing screws up traffic all day. However, just because white people have not heard of the Bud Billiken Parade and do not love it in their hearts does not mean it is not the second largest parade in the nation. For two years, I lived at 35th and 5th in Manhattan (Macy's parade ends at 34th and 6th/Broadway. I enjoy both traditions. All I am saying is that this is a big day for the South Side. Next year the article will have a higher priority because it will be over two years old, but the parade will be the 81st annual, giving it lower date-relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the 81st the 80th anniversary of the first one? Note that you can't get more than one point for date relevance unless the article is about the entity having the anniversary, so we're discussing one point, tops.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The parade started in 1929. This is the 80th anniversary. Normal TFAR counting means this is the year for two points if date relevance is given. In 2010, it would be the 81st annual. Raul is a New Yorker and I lived there for five years. Bud Billiken would be like the PR Day parade in Manhattan on a slightly larger scale with national broadcasts on English language television networks. It impacts the city a great deal and nationally it is known by people of the race/ethnicity that celebrate it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of myself as a knowledgeable person, but I've never heard of it. Tony, the multiple point anniversaries only apply in situations where the anniversary is that of the subject of the article. That is, say, John Calvin and his anniversary earlier in the month. It does not apply to an article, say, on Calvanism, because that concept is not 500 years old this month. This is the way we've done it, Tony, if you want a rule change, propose it, but please make sure it is airtight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain how that explanation applies to the Inauguration again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) - perhaps it was special? Comparing the Inauguration, with many people watching world-wide, to a parade that few outside of Illinois have heard of seems slightly odd to me... Anyway, instead of needless drama here, how about you nom the article and let consensus decide the points?—Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He nommed it at one point, replacing Sirius three days before Sirius's requested date. South Side was replaced a day later by the video game article. If I recall correctly, WDC got one point date relevance, two points as a two year FA, and one point no prior FA's by the nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I nommed it at 1/3 points. A single discussant opined it was worth one point. It was replaced in a matter of hours. I feel consensus may rule it is one point, but have never had an article removed by voice of a single discussant before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff. You claimed one and said you'd like to claim three but were being conservative. The video game still would have been within its rights to remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of non-TFA Featured Articles?

Is there a list of FAs that have not been on the Main Page? Smallbones (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Add this to your monobook.css:

span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

and go to Wikipedia:featured articles. All the ones that have appeared on the main page will be bolded. Raul654 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want just the ones that have not been on the main page you might try

span.has_been_on_main_page{ display: none; } .

All the ones that have appeared on the main page will be invisible. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also a list of those which have appeared here

Thanks; it works (clear the cache after changing monobook is important). This should be very helpful the next time something like the 40th anniversary of the 1st moonlanding comes along and there's nothing to mark it. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page, it would be extremely easy to create Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page; a single edit to the {{#if: {{{maindate|}}} ... }} in {{ArticleHistory}} and then waiting a week or so for the pages to all purge themselves during server downtime, and the category would be populated. This might be a bit more convenient than the monobook way, and it would provide a precise number of non-TFA featured articles, which would be nice. (That number can't be gotten with {{#expr: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles}} - {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page}} }} , because the latter category contains a lot of former featured articles so this subtraction would underestimate the number of current FAs that haven't been featured yet.)

Either way, it's not super-important... but creating a category like this would be easy and I don't see any drawbacks, so why not? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a .css and a .js monobook. Can I add this to my .js?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

CSS is formatting information, JS is executable script content. The browser surround is different, so you can't put CSS in your .js file (or vice versa). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating this page did not work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you use monobook skin (in preferences/appearance), and did you clear your cache (like it says in the box at the top of your monobook.css file)? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I figure out what skin I use?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From Special:Preferences (this is where the "My preferences" link goes) click the "appearance" tab (or link, depending on what skin you're using). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I use Monobook. I think it was the cache thing. It is working now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

Is there any thought on expanding the template to cover the next ninety days, or just repealing the time limit? It is very underutilized.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone objects this weekend (wikitime), I'll expand it to 90 days and see if that works for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph W. Tkach

There is some discrepancy on the prospective point total for Joseph W. Tkach and I am ready to air it out here. I believe he would be a 4-pointer on September 23 (2 for age, 1 for diversity and 1 for anniversary). The diversity point seems to be at issue and I do not understand why.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, for diversity we go strictly by the categories at WP:FA, if the article's category has 49 or fewer articles in it, we give it a bonus point, such as the Birkett article on law that just got nominated. It isn't very complicated, and it is fairly mechanical. And we had a religious leader (Calvin) on July 10, so it doesn't get a point for main page representation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

O.K. then please update the Notes section at WP:TFAR. The category is still listed as point-eligible even though it now has 63 articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. has there been any talk of splitting up the WP:FA cats to have subcats like at WP:GA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted that. The other categories still look good. I think we're safe for a while, though one of them is up to 44.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Feature lists on the main page

I recently asked SandyGeorgia and Raul654 if there was a process by which a featured list could be nominated for the main page, to which the answer was essentially no. However, I am particularly interested in getting list of cutaneous conditions displayed on the main page because I (1) think it's a great list, and (2) would like to increase the community's exposure to dermatology-related content. Therefore, I wanted to know if either (A) an exception could be made in the nomination process, allowing for this list to be nominated, or else (B) if I could offer up a new proposal, somewhere, that feature list nominations be considered for the main page? ---kilbad (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of good reasons in general not to have featured lists on the main page, at least in the TFA spot. In general FAs are a different animal and perhaps better and harder to achieve than FLs (I expect there are some disagreements on that!) Let's just say a different animal. Also a big backlog of FAs.

Your specific list has some major pros and cons. A lot of meat in the article/list. Very good use of the list format, comprehensive as all get out. Very definitely part of "the best of Wikipedia." On the other hand this list would be open to a lot of abuse, vandalism, and "man that's gross" type comments. The picture question would definitely be interesting. Acne vulgaris is kind of hip in a teenage sort of way, and black hairy tongue is certainly interesting, but most of the other pix ... all I can say is "man that's gross." Which makes me feel guilty for using such a lame argument for keeping this off the main page, but I'd guess I'm not alone in this squeamishness.

I'll suggest getting some support here to just put it on the request page, (and then expecting it to be shot down because it's against the rules), but take your shot if you get support here - what's the worst that can happen? So let me give

• Squeamish support for at least puting it on the request page for further discusssion Smallbones (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support A discussion is harmless and I support lists on the main page. Don't expect it to make the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think we should keep it on talk page here. After all, the point of this venture is to make recommendations to Raul, and he's a lot more likely to be persuaded by argument here than putting it on the request page. A FL is not eligible at present; we are limited to FAs only, and Raul's the FA Director.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Smallbones is correct in most respects. There are currently 1160 FAs that have not been on the main page (±3), and I don't think it would go down well to have a space taken up by a list with little warning. It is accepted and almost certainly true that FAs are harder to achieve than FLs; in particular, the two aspects of FAs that make them much harder to write than FLs are a) the requirement to cover all aspects of a subject thoroughly as opposed to drawing up a complete, referenced list (although the proposed list is quite impressive, and certainly difficult to keep comprehensive ); and b) the requirement for professional-quality prose throughout, as opposed to three or four paragraphs in modern FLs (although once again, the proposed list's lead surpasses most others', and is very well-written). The one thing with which I disagree is the "sqeamishness" factor. The picture issue notwithstanding, if we can have Gropecunt Lane on the Main Page, than this can't be worse. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind the idea of a FL section on the main page, but they don't belong in the TFA spot IMO. Don't mind the discussion tho. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion... but I personally have no problem with FL's appearing on the main page, but not in the FA section. Theoretically, an FL can be written in a day, there is zero chance of an FA being written in a day. The difference in quality is significant. Unforunately, I don't see any place to put FL's without redesigning the entire front page, and that's been tried. The only other option would be to have one day a week where 2 or 3 FL's are entered into the section currently used for FA's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Something like a special FL day would, I think, not be good for readers; it's the sort of thing that is more interesting and meaningful to editors than readers. Most readers, I would imagine, do not know what an FL is or what the difference between it and an FA is, and they would probably be confused to see things looking different all of a sudden. (Granted, maybe that's not a bad thing—who knows, maybe some readers will click some links to find out what "featured list" and "featured article" mean and that might inspire them to become editors—I'm just saying.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a special FL day... and I do think there would be value to the readers as they are still well written and important. Another option, would be to usurp the DYK space.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, although I daresay that DYK wouldn't like that (unless we keep DYK and use hooks from only featured lists). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What is that page of issues that are frequently raised and defeated (can't remember)? This has come up many times, and IMO it's still a non-starter. Featured lists do not receive the same scrutiny that FAs do, there are still hundreds of FAs waiting to appear on the main page, and I'm unclear what the benefit to our readers will be of seeing lists instead of articles (that link to lists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was WP:PEREN; WP:LOTD was one of the more recent proposals. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I've observed the FL standards have grown more stringent in recent months, so I think it's unfair to treat them as inherently inferior to FAs. That said, as I noted below, there are several potential benefits from featuring a list(s) on the main page; namely, increased interest in featured lists and lists in general, which would almost surely benefit the featured content as a whole in the form of additional reviewers and participants. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Sandy is also referring to the fact that the featured list process is simply less well known than that of featured articles and so doesn't receive as much exposure or reviewers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that could in theory be fixed by featuring lists more prominently on the main page. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think featuring this list on the main page is an excellent idea. It's important to introduce readers to all aspects of Wikipedia, and lists are generally under-advertised. You have my support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment For reasons that Sandy and others have brought up, I don't think lists should be regularly featured on the main page. However, if we can find a truly exemplary (and interesting) list, I think we should put it on, (after a final quality check and all that). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. Perhaps TFA/R can be used as a venue to determine "exemplary" assuming this would get Raul's blessing? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless exception circumstances are present (the coolest list evar!!). In general lists are much less interesting for readers than articles. In a nutshell, I don't think we should subject our readers to them for the sake of rewarding list creators. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• We have thousands of featured lists, why not advertise them? There's no point in hiding content because some might find it boring. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment How hard can a main page change be? Just compress the current FP box to half the screen and put a FL box in the other one. Or an "Assorted Other Featured Material" or something to work in Sounds/Portals/Topics/etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sandy. We have hundreds of FA's waiting their turn. Why should a FL usurp that space? Just because they are termed "Featured"? Go take the space from the picture, then. If you put a FL in the FA space, you open the door to doing it again and again, it is a very poor precedent, the TFA/R criteria aren't set up for it, and we have no idea if we'd wind up in voting contests for FA versus FL. Don't go here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You actually counter your point here... there is a place for Featured Pictures on the Main Page.75.53.109.86 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear; I was proposing that the lists take the space from the pictures, if the lists must appear main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Featured lists, as with any of our best content, deserve to be shown on the main page. I do not support a featured list taking the place of a featured article, unless the day comes when we have run out of FA candidates. Ri-i-ight. So I support the addition of a subordinate new main page FL section that readers can scroll down to view, one that fits next to or below the featured picture. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Sometimes I think it would be a good feature, other times I don't. As Julian said, it would be nice to get some additional attention to FL, which would come about from being on the main page, but I don't think there will be too many people who want to read a list of sports statistics and episode lists, which take up the majority of FL's content.
  I don't wish to turn this into a FL vs FA thing, but FAs are generally more interesting to read than FLs. Lists generally appeal to people only interested in lists, and most people aren't. Some of what Sandy says I agree with. If we're not talking about taking from TFA's space, then it's not fair to discuss whether or not FLs go through the same scrutiny as FA, Both go through a process, both are only promoted when consensus says so. That said, I do concede that it can be harder to achieve an FA than an FL.
  Anyway, right now the main page has no space for FL and I don't think that FL should be taking away any of the space of FA, FP, DYK or anything else. If the main page gets redesigned and there is available space for FL, then sure, otherwise it's probably best not to. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support to occasionally (maybe once or twice a month) to feature a list instead of an article. I say occasionally because there is not as much diversity in featured lists as in featured articles; most featured lists are discographies, lists of tallest buildings in a city, sports-related lists and etc. Pantherskin (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Springs massacre

Basically I was wondering if its ok to replace one of the 1-point articles with Rock Springs massacre for September 2, which is the anniversary of the event. I estimate four points but could be wrong, as I have never done this before. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can, but as there is plenty of time, please tell us how you came up with the four points. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And please note it's going to lose two points to Rosewood massacre, TFA on August 4. 29 days. Ouch.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooo, nevermind then, I didn't realize.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two points could still make it. How did you come up with the point total?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two points because it was promoted two or more years ago, one point because the date is relevant to the article topic, one point for not having an FA on the Main page and being the a significant contributor to article, that's it. I don't think the subject matter is a basic topic, as no one knows about this event, let alone twelve year olds. But it loses the two because of the Rosewood massacre. I pretty much resigned myself to never seeing this article on the Main Page some time ago, so it's no big deal. Not something that I am going to spend a lot of time worrying about.--IvoShandor (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why give up so easily? First, two points very often makes it through. Second, by my calculations about 85 percent of articles that have been nominated make it through either on a first or subsequent try, or by a Raul selection. Third, Raul selects an eclectic bunch of articles. Wait for a vacancy and give it a shot!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Here I requested that Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 12, 2009 be substituted with another article, but apparently Raul is away. Is there anything I can do at this point? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bit of advice I'd usually give, but (assuming Raul is away) this might actually be one of the rare occasions when asking Jimbo to use his founder flag would actually be the best course of action. This kind of "something needs to be done urgently, but none of the people who'd normally do it are available" situation is exactly what the God-King role was intended for. (Adding) Or if Karanacs is about, she has admin powers and presumably knows better than Jimbo the issues and technicalities involved in TFA selection. – iridescent 09:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's stepping on Raul's toes. And I saw Julian's post, and it predated what I think was Raul's departure by several days. You can check that by comparing the timestamp on his post against Raul's contributions. Think well before you do such a thing! Raul has managed this process quite well for five years, he presumably knows what he is doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done by Raul. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anniversary only specific to the month, not day

Does that count. I'm thinking of nominating Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, which came out in July 1980. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hesitate to do this one. A year ago, we made an exception for the Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal because its bicentennial could only be pinned down to a month, not a day. This is a recent work, (I assume you mean a nom next July) and it is a far less significant anniversary. I'd lean against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Women's Equality Day in the U.S.

Greetings. I don't have a specific article in mind but would appreciate it if you do if it could be on the main page August 26, which is the anniversary of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. has signed but not ratified CEDAW which went into force in 1981, nor has the U.S. ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Perhaps there is a good featured article about a feminist? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How about Margaret Fuller? Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely. Thank you, Awadewit! I will add Margaret Fuller to the suggestions. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Except it only scores 1 point for the anniversary, so it will fail "the new request is replacing another request with lower points". So I leave it here. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Margaret Fuller Ossoli, more commonly known as Margaret Fuller, (May 23, 1810 – July 19, 1850) was a journalist, critic and women's rights activist associated with the American transcendental movement. She was the first full-time female book reviewer in journalism. Her book Woman in the Nineteenth Century is considered the first major feminist work in the United States. Fuller was an advocate of women's rights and, in particular, women's education and the right to employment. She also encouraged many other reforms in society, including prison reform and the emancipation of slaves in the United States. Many other advocates for women's rights and feminism, including Susan B. Anthony, cite Fuller as a source of inspiration. Many of her contemporaries, however, were not supportive, including her former friend Harriet Martineau, who said that Fuller was a talker rather than an activist. Shortly after Fuller's death her importance faded; the editors who prepared her letters to be published, believing her fame would be short-lived, were not concerned about accuracy and censored or altered much of her words before publication.

My preference for Margaret Fuller would be her bicentennial in May 2010. But whatever works! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We actually got a vote for waiting from Binksternet. So I removed it from the list of candidates. Anyone else? I fear driving the candidate nominators crazy for a week. So if you are confident, please list it yourself. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maggie will kick some ass next year on her 200th birthday. :D Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose that Nancy Drew would suffice? Kind of a fun choice, I think. Other possibilities include lesbian feminist Natalie Clifford Barney or lesbian pulp fiction writer Ann Bannon. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be wonderful if a choice, besides the dreary, predictable academic one were selected. Probably no chance though. —mattisse (Talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are excellent suggestions. This dreary academic teaches a section of her children's literature class on Nancy Drew and feminism. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good! 'Cause the pickin's are mighty slim otherwise, in terms of American feminism, over at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. It's kind of late to rush a GA through to FA... Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

<=GA material that ought to be advanced to FA for future August 26 showings: Anne Dallas Dudley, Lowell Mill Girls, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and (heh heh) Stay-at-home dad. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Count another !vote for Nancy Drew. Also one for this picture of Natalie Clifford Barney. You are full of good ideas. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hark, hark the quark

I see only four points for Headbomb's article. No similar six months (no atomic or subatomic particles), no prior TFA Headbomb, and date relation for Gellmann's birthday. The other points he claimed are misinterpretations of the rules, but it is not a big deal, we have never replaced a four point article. I'll drop a note on his talk page when I get through my stack of virtual paperwork which has built up in the past 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They are misinterpretations in as much as they follows the spirit rather than the letter of the rules. Physics and Astronomy shouldn't be lumped together in the same category as much as Law and Politics & Government aren't. For the vital article thing, the list of "vital" article makes very little sense from a physicist's point of view. If neutrinos are there, then quarks should be there too. It's as if you considered Chemical element to be less important than manganese. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, but in this little bailiwick, we can't decide whether quark should be a vital article or not. All we know is that it presently isn't. And we have no influence over the categories at WP:FA. We only apply the rules, generally fairly mechanically, and make recommendations to Raul, which he can take or disregard.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that quark should be a vital article, but that is OTT here a little (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article (tangentially) related to news item

Hi all, the White-winged Fairy-wren has a rare subspecies on Barrow Island (Western Australia), which is in the news in Oz today as a result of this item. Problem is, (1) it has been on the main page in a DYK section (2) it is a bird, and we've just had a bird, Emperor Penguin on the main page, and both were ones I was instrumental in getting promoted and I have had oodles on the mainpage already. So I slung it up here as a feeler to see what Raul and other folks thought. (i.e. somewhat topical and environmental etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, what a beautiful bird! The DYK appearance is totally irrelevant: only TFA appearances count on that rule. But the Emperor Penguin rules all as far as I see it. -3 points for the next month! +1 for date of promotion, but no other positive points that I can see. Maybe after Sept 1, when the 1 pointer drops off the list, you could try for a new low (so to speak). A couple of 0's have gone through. One never knows, do one? But I can't say that it has a good chance. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it presently -2, it will become -1 and eventually 1 as we go further away from the date of the Penguin. Unless Opus goes FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Archie Jackson

I have just added a TFA request for this article. I am aware I need to remove the lowest ranked request but is there an archiving process I need to follow to do this or do I just remove the text? Sorry if I have got anything wrong. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the lowest ranked article, still unsure if I am correct ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you just remove it. What you did looks good! :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking the table

Do you think that things that have been bumped but had a date that has not yet been scheduled should appear with some sort of asterisk below the top 5 lines of the chart? I think Dwarf planet got shafted in a sense and feel Fountain of Time may be lost in the shuffle. It probably gets hard to keep track of the support levels for everything that got bumped. The bumped section could have an additional column sayin bumped by article x.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar things have been discussed before and not adopted, generally because it erodes the five-article rule. I'd say two things. First, I think we can assume pretty safely that Raul follows the request page and discussion here reasonably closely. So he's aware of the articles that don't make it. Since the sole purpose of these pages is to have a process to make recommendations to him, I think that the additional column wouldn't help much, and might prejudice people against an article (how dare you bump Harry Potter, I'll show you!). I'd have no objection, though, to seeing someone start a archival chart of nominations, points, support/oppose level, and what became of the nomination (passed through and used, passed through and not used, bumped by article X (y points), withdrawn, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

September 1

reduced to a subsection - didn't see the above thread – iridescent 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Now there are spaces again, would there be any objections to restoring the nomination for Fountain of Time, which was ahead 10-0 when it was delisted, and has two simultaneous and unrelated strong date relevances? – iridescent 12:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How can we? The date's scheduled. You'd have to talk to Raul directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah ignore me, didn't see he'd already scheduled it. (FWIW I think he's made a mistake with that one, as "start of WW2" is such a significant anniversary.) – iridescent 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Do the pending requests get taken into consideration?

I know Pinkerton (album) was kicked off the requests list but I added it back to the pending requests. Does it stand a chance of going onto the front page even if it never makes it onto the requests again? Spiderone 12:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. Raul has often run articles that didn't make it through. I would say upwards of 85% of articles that are requested but don't run make it onto the main page within a year. Based on my 14 months experience here. No guarantees though. Also suggest you watchlist this page so you'll know when Raul schedules that date and you can jump back in with your nomination. The fact that you nominated it seems to give it a boost, Raul seems to very rarely pick articles that were in the template but were never nominated.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

September 1

It is a bit late but I hope we can still change this: can we feature Polish culture during World War II on September 1? September 1 is the anniversary of German invasion of Poland and start of WWII, and Polish culture during World War II is relevant to the subject and was (relatively) recently promoted. Our current choice for Sept 1 is Cædwalla, which seems to have noting in common with September 1, and so could be easily moved to a later date. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to ask Raul654 (talk · contribs) about this. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

September 11 anniversary

Last year we run United Airlines Flight 93 for the anniversary. Being in the Tristate area it would be nice to have another article on the anniversary of the event. Suitable nominee are American Airlines Flight 11 and American Airlines Flight 77, both are 2 pointers (1 year & date), have the same author. But the primary author VegitaU is currently on wikibreak. — Dispenser 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could drop a note on Raul's talk page. Also, think about the fact that we are going to run out of 9/11 flight articles one of these days and maybe these articles should be held for major anniversaries like the 10th coming up in a couple of years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 175 still needs to be brought up to FA, but I would rather see one of the buildings for the tenth anniversary. — Dispenser 06:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was in the Pentagon when AA077 hit. I don't personally enjoy being reminded of that terrible day every time the anniversary comes around, but I can understand the desire of others to memoralize the tragedy. I don't know if it's necessary to have a memorial main page feature about it every year, but if enough people feel it is appropriate, then no objection from me. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was okay with running UA93 last year and okay with running something related for tenth anniversary, but rather not do that every year. For this year, I have requested on Raul's talk page that he run something unrelated on the eleventh, such as one of the species featured articles. The 9/11 article will still be linked in the anniversaries section of the main page. (p.s. it appears that VegitaU still checks Wikipedia and edits occasionally) --Aude (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should not always be a 9/11 article. Besides, we have only four planes, and even if the building articles are brought up to FA, a limited number of those. In general, I think we should very rarely reserve a date for a specific article topic every year. We do have other portions of the main page that can take up the slack, such as On this Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the views above. Best not to set a precedent for things like these. -- Veggy (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-topical point discussion

I think there should be a point deduction for co-WP:GT or co-WP:FT articles. I think it should be something like if an article from the same co-topical subject has been on the main page in the last year -1, last 6 months -2, last 3 months -3. For example, two athletes on the main page close together is a problem. Two athletes from the same team in the same sport on the main page close together is even worse. It is not inconceivable that several articles at WP:CHIFTD become featured. Saying one is a bridge another is a sculpture, another is music venue and another is an open air art gallery would allow them all to be on the main page very proximally. This is wrong. Even though many articles that have now been topics have been on the main page. Star Wars, saffron, etc., I think they should be spaced. Suppose I took both Template:GAstar Manny Harris and Template:GAstar DeShawn Sims to featured status. Having them both on the main page close together is worse than having one of them on the main page and a cricket player on the main page. An adjustment for co-topical article needs to be made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but co-topical subjects may not be part of a GT or FT? Doesn't that punish people for GT or FT? Couldn't we address your concerns more easily through an adjustment of the similarity points?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally support this type of effort but think the devil is in the details. Specific proposed rules are needed to properly judge. BTW I don't think that too many cricket players, too close together, is a major problem; but everybody has got their own list. Mine is too many video games, wrestling matches, and hurricanes. 1 of those per year should be enough. Actually I like hurricanes compared to the others, so even 2 articles on hurricanes per year would be ok with me. Also no articles on Wolverines ever. Sorry if I'm getting carried away, but specific rules are needed to properly judge. Smallbones (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying 2 Hurricanes is bad, but Hurricane X's effect on Florida and Hurricane X's effect on South Carolina should not be on the main page in the same year, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The easiest and least subjective would be using GT and FT as an arbiter. Other rules get subjective. I don't think there is a Samuel Johnson topic, so this might not solve the problem that I want to solve. We need to do something though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. in my mind the right solution would be a solution that would deduct exactly one more point from the current Johnson article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is already covered in similarity points: no adjustments needed, and further tweaking will only discourage featured topics. I don't see the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication that any of the current deductions has effected the editorial efforts in any way. If you would read the issue, what I am saying is that there is currently no deduction other than being in the came general FA category. Not all athletes are equally similar. I think you are saying that you do not understand why certain subjects in the same general FA category are more similar than others based on your response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to define it. I guess "would be part of a small GT or FT" might do it, but there might be a good counter example that shows that won't work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this entire concept. Important topics such as Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Johnson, evolution, History of science etc. should be represented multiple times on the main page. For instance 2009 has both the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth (back in Feb) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (coming in November). A rule like what is being proposed here would make it more difficult to honor both dates, and that is just silly. The similarity rule is more than bad enough in terms of making it difficult to honor important anniveraries. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

October 1 & 10

Does anyone know if any China-related articles are lined up for October 1 (National Day in the PRC) or October 10 (National Day in Taiwan)? I'm asking because I'm thinking of suggesting Chinese classifier for October 3 (a pan-Chinese holiday; because October 1 and 10 are political, this article wouldn't really be suitable for either of them) once there's room in TFA/R. Of course, if there is already something Chinese lined up for October 1 or 10 then I wouldn't nominate this one for the 3rd, but I figured I'd at least check. (also, of course, if something with a stronger date relevance wants the 3rd, then I also would look for a new date.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen anything. Of course, Raul could have something he's planning, you might want to ask him.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop him a note when he gets back from his trip :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Table layout

Can we add two columns to the table at the top for support and oppose totals?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No technical reason not to. But accept that it won't always be done quickly. Although--could we get a bot, along the lines of what they do at RfA? We'd probably have to separate things out into supports, opposes, neutrals, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a lot more manageable than RFA. It could be managed by hand. E.G., the page has not been edited for a few days now. RFA never goes days without votes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now were in a bit of a lull because we're scheduled up and people seem mostly content to await a vacancy. I have no objection. Obviously put a warning in that people need to check against the actual discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me right now. I'll suggest that we have a discussion here in 2-4 weeks to see if it should be made permanent. Smallbones (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this addition is irritating, wasn't a great idea, and should be eliminated for the same reasons it wasn't employed at FAC: all supports and opposes aren't equal, and this adds to page maintenance. For example, there are two Opposes on Johnson right now they have very little relativity to anything related to how TFAs are chosen. Please eliminate this unnecessary addition to the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No further comments? I still don't think this was a good addition. Normally, with such weak discussion prior to adding it, I would just go ahead and delete it myself, but since Johnson is up, with 6 opposes, it doesn't feel right for me to remove this make-work addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All three interested parties came to an agreement to add it. It seems to be working and it makes things easier to figure out. It is not a make-work addition in truth because it makes watching the page easier.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's about time to do the 2-4 week discussion (see above). I don't mind it at all and think it helps sometimes, other people seem to like it, SandyGeorgia seems to be the only one with a complaint. The "Make work" part should lead us to ask - Who actually does the up-dating? and What do they think? I would update, but it always seems to be done already. If none of the updaters complain, I'll suggest keeping it, but I'm fairly neutral. Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you say who the "other people" are. It might help to encourage them to comment here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have updated it a couple times, but not as much as some others. I really like just being able to see what is going on from the chart. It saves me time (scrolling and counting).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping it updated, too. Personally, I don't much care for the table, but if it's there, I'll update it. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the entire table being removed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost none of the current entries are correct (nominator declaration counts as support), discussions aren't "votes" so the table is misleading (will Raul even consider an "I've never heard of him" oppose, which is irrelevant to main page selection?), and there are many more valuable ways for DaBomb to be spending his time besides trying to keep up a chart tally that has little meaning. For these same reasons, TTT's proposals to add tally tables at FAC were rejected ...they were rarely accurate, nominators used them to misrepresent, and they just created extra work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would not feel that I made a cogent argument in support of a change if it did not attract a vociferous opposition from Sandy. Unlike running around at FAC and maintaining 5o tables at a time on individual FAC discussion pages, this is a very centralized table. We all know that the counts are not the sole determinant of TFA inclusion. Surely, Raul ways each argument and makes his own judgment. I just think the tally shows what is going on. Anyone who comes to the page right now sees there is substantive debate about the Johnson articles TFAness. They can see it very clearly and know that if they want to way in on this issue they should. It is much easier than scrolling and counting supports for all the articles. I think in time you will see this causes borderline nominees to have more opinions stated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with TTT here. I appreciate that it means more work, but it highlights the candidates that are up for debate (if something has 1 support and 10 opposes, or 15 supports with no opposition, there's no particular point going to the effort of learning enough about the subject to have an opinion. It doesn't need to be completely accurate, just enough to give a ballpark idea of what is and isn't contentious. – iridescent 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing on this page as 1 support and 10 opposes, because of the rules for removing nominations. And because of those rules, it does need to be accurate: currently, most of them aren't. TTT, please refrain from personalizing discussions and using peacockery like "vociferous". If you're so concerned about this tally, please review and update all of them to correctly reflect the rules stated on the page, where nominator is an assumed support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(coming in late) I've never replaced a nom here, so I'm not the biggest expert on how it all works...but judging by my reading of the rules, a nom doesn't need "50% opposes after adjusting for the value of each person's vote" to be removed, it just needs 50% opposes regardless of how good or bad they are (excluding, of course, blatant votestacking by sockpuppets or canvassing). For that, the table is useful for someone wanting to skim the page and see what slots might be available. It's probably not useful for Raul deciding what to promote, as Sandy points out, because other factors go into it...but just for removing/replacing nominations, if my understanding of the rules is correct, it seems like it could be helpful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

October 15 for Fight Club

Hello, I improved Fight Club (film) to Featured Article status, and I would like to have it appear on the Main Page on October 15, which will be the tenth anniversary of the film's theatrical release. It's my first time making a request, and so far, I have added the article to the "Potential upcoming requests" box. There are five requests, none which are removable, so I assume it would be okay to insert the film article once Samuel Johnson's early life is removed? I have a blurb being drafted at User:Erik/Sandbox in the meantime. Can someone let me know if I'm on the right track so far? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could wait until Rudolf Caracciola has a fair shot? Maybe replace it later? :) Apterygial 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can do that. :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Better wording for footnote on date relevence point

One of the most common sources of confusion over appropriate points for FAR nominations concerns the date relevance point. Nominators frequently assume that if a particular date is appropriate for a particular article then the nomination must be eligible for a date relevance point. However, the consensus interpretation of the rule has always been that the point should only be awarded if there is a direct connection between a topic covered significantly in the article and the date. The current footnote does say that, but given how common this particular misunderstanding seems to be, further clarification might be in order. The current footnote says:

"For example Earth on Earth Day, a birthday, or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article."

I would suggest something like the following:

"For example Earth on Earth Day, a birthday, or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article. Please note that often a particular date may be appropriate for a particular article without that article being eligible for a date relevancy point on that date. For example it might be appropriate to nominate an article on some aspect of Chinese culture for the date of an important Chinese holiday, but such a nomination would only be eligible for a date relevancy point if the article discusses that particular holiday itself or a topic directly connected to it."

What does everyone thinik? Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article Earth doesn't mention Earth Day. This is the old "direct vs. indirect date relevance" question, which has never been properly resolved (but should be). I'm in favor of 1 point for indirect date relevance. Certainly the current wording could be better, and any changes will be tricky. Smallbones (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I support Rusty's rewording (especially since it was my nom that prompted the latest iteration of this discussion!). It could probably be trimmed a bit, but the gist seems right. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If that could be trimmed, I might consider supporting, but would have to see what it says. Generally, all discussions are subject to consensus, so we should avoid instruction creep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"For example the birthday of a person or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article. Note that an article may be appropriate for a date without being eligible for this point. For example an article on some aspect of Chinese culture might be appropriate for an important Chinese holiday, but to be eligible for this point the article must discuss a topic directly connected to the holliday."

It is reasonably short but I think it would forstall at least some of the arguments we see to constantly be having over this point. At the very least it would provide Wehwalt with ammunition to cut the argument off quickly :) In my mind the probolem with allowing this point for indirect connections is that the majority of nominations will be for days that have some such connection (like the Chinese linguistics article on a Chinese holliday, or an American history article for July 4th) and what is the value in having a point that most of the nominations will qualify for? I think it is much better to reserve the point for when there is a more direct connection like say an article about Lincoln or Washington for Presidents day or an article about someone who signed the American declaration of independance for July 4. Note that Earth would still qualify for Earthday because even though Earth doesn't discusse Earth Day there is still a direct connection between the subject of the article and the object of the holliday. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, the appropriateness of an article for a particular day, whilst not winning an extra point, may encourage extra support, thereby increasing the chances of the nomination remaining on the page and ultimately being selected. Bencherlite^Talk 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... I often see people here getting into big fights over points even when people are supporting them. But support is really more important than points. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction of proposed text and editing for length and spelling:

"For example the birthday of a person or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article. An article may be appropriate for a date without being eligible for these points. For example an article on some aspect of Chinese culture might be appropriate for an important Chinese holiday, but to be eligible for this point the article must discuss a topic directly connected to the holiday."

footnote should actually be on the bold heading a line above where it is now.

I don't think it clears up the direct/indirect questions, e.g. the article on Handel's opera Agrippina (opera) certainly discusses a topic directly connected to Handel's birthday (George, himself); but I don't think we gave any points for that. Smallbones (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• Indirect: one point if there is a obvious and major connection between the article and an event, observance, or anniversary on the proposed dates, such as Earth on Earth Day, Washington D.C. on Inauguration Day, and an article about an opera on the composer's death anniversary.
• Direct: the number of points stated below (insert chart) for the anniversary of a event of major significance to the subject of the article, such as (if a person) date of birth, death, beginning or ending of tenure in the most significant office held by the subject, or (if not a person) date of discovery, publication, or first performance. Not all articles will have such dates.

--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the thought - but this isn't your suggested wording, is it? Let me try:

Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)

Insert Chart

Notes

1. For example Earth on Earth Day. One point is awarded if there is an obvious and major connection between the article and the date. Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event. No points might be awarded if there is only a minor relation between the date and the article, e.g. Chinese language on Chinese New Years.

I'd suggest leaving out the "minor relation" sentence, as it is likely to lead to more arguments. I'm not thrilled about "significant coverage", I kinda suspect we've seen articles where there have been mentions in the lede in order to try to inflate points at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How about trying something like this:

Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)

2. One point is awarded if there is an obvious and signficant connection between the article and the date, for example Earth on Earth Day. Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event. Note that just because an article might be appropriate for a date, for example Chinese language on Chinese New Years, does not mean a point should be awarded.

I think that might cover all of the bases, and should at the very least make resolving the arguments easier.Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to Rusty's language. Why don't you make a proposal, and we'll see if there is consensus?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a formal proposal it is. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Competing articles

Should I withdraw Interstate 355, which is an Illinois article since it is being nominated against 1968 Illinois earthquake or are they not really in competition with each other. The earthquake is the better choice for the main page, but I am not sure that they both can not be included. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure I am following you, but if you are worried about the point deduction for similiar articles. I don't think you have a problem. Not even with the generous definition of similarity used here could an article on a highway be considered similar to an article on a natural disaster. The fact that the disaster happens to be in the same state the highway runs through is pretty much immaterial. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd leave it up. I don't see a problem. They just happen to impact the same area. No similarity deduction, just a matter for the judgment of the community and Raul.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, as the one who (presumably) prompted this. I personally don't like having two articles about the same area in quick succession, unless there's a very good reason (a pair of 100th anniversaries, say) and consequently will oppose one of the two, but that's purely my personal opinion, not any kind of policy. I support the earthquake one over the road one because we have quite a lot of road TFAs and not many earthquakes, and because I think more of the general readers will find the earthquake one interesting. – iridescent 14:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With Raul as the gatekeeper, he makes the decision. If we think both articles are worthy, no problem recommending both and then leaving it up to him, for which he earns the big bucks, doesn't he? Right?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to footnote for date relevance point

Based on previous discussion on this page the following change is proposed to text explaining the date relevancy point. The proposed new text would be:

Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)

• Support - as proposer. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Smallbones (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think this will alleviate some of the confusion. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yup. ceranthor 20:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Let's see how this works. Bencherlite^Talk 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest that an eighth support would make a consensus (maybe even seven will do), and that then it should be implemented. The current batch of requests all have only 1 date point, so there should be no problem of comparing apples to oranges using the new and old methods. With Nov. 15 and Nov. 24 there might be multiple date point requests, so it might be better to make the change before these are requested. It would also be a good idea to schedule a review of whether the new footnote works as expected - say the first week of December? Smallbones (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to wait until tonight (U.S. Pacific coast timezone) and if no-one expressed opposition I was going to claim consensus and implement the change. I think that plan should be consistent with your request. I don't really anticipate a big "changeover" issue because the proposed change really just clarifies the way we have been interpreting the current rule for quite some time (see the October 3 nomination under [2] for one among many such discussions). The goal of this change is not to change the way points actually end up being awarded but rather reduce the amount of arguing that results from nominators misunderstanding (or at least not interpreting the same way regular contributors to this page do) the rule. The fact that this amounts to a clarification rather than a rule change presumably explains the lack of opposition (knock on wood). Although if someone did want to oppose the change they would probably argue that the change represents codifying a certain interpretation rather than just a clarification. Rusty Cashman (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Smallbones (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong article replaced

If I am correct, Interstate 355 with 4 supports and 3 opposes should have gotten replaced before posting system with 3 supports and no opposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Agree, I don't have time to fix it now but suggest someone fix it. If it is still not fixed this afternoon I will take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk)

I'd leave it as is, unless Torsodog insists. Since the replaced article was for the same date, it's clear that it would be replaced next. More of a quirk in the wording of point 2 than anything else. Smallbones (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how all this stuff works, so I'll leave it up to the experts to make the decision. For what it is worth, however, I will say that I was excited to have a chance to put the first ever article relating to Japanese baseball on the main page. If I could prolong that chance, obviously that would be preferable. --Torsodog^Talk 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's your call. If you want it back, we'll put it back in. But given that there is a higher point article, also on sports, seeking the same date, you might do better to renominate your article for the date of the closing of the period, if there is such a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll just renom later. You guys will probably see me again when the period closes allllll they way on March 1st. Four months gives me a bit of time to kill :) --Torsodog^Talk 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 13th FA

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, but realized today I probably should have posted here instead.

Just a suggestion, perhaps File:SmashBall.svg can be used for Super Smash Bros. Brawl while on the main page, similar to how File:Triforce.svg was used for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. The smash ball image is a free commons image and represents an in-game object that also appears in the game's logo. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

I think you'd do better to post at Raul's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

22 minute until tomorrow

No TFA has been scheduled for tomorrow (22 minutes from now).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul just beat you by 2 minutes. – iridescent 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul has not missed yet. And if he was a few minutes late, would the sky fall? But it has never happened. Give him a break.

How many points would this be?

I want to put Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel up at WP:TFAR for November 28, but I'm unsure of how many points it will get. It would be the first time I've made a request there, although another article I nominated at FAC has featured on the main page. It has date relevance in that it's the 77th anniversary of the first episode. I'm not sure what points it will get for its subject matter though. It's a radio series, there is only one other similar article at FA, and that's Hitchhiker's Guide, but then I don't know if it falls under "radio", in which case Mutual Broadcasting System for October 29 may have an impact, or whether it would fall under "Media", in which case it could scupper all chances of it appearing. How many points do you guys think it would be, and is it worth nominating? Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I count 1 for the 77th anniversary. The diversity point would refer to the category "media" which is not underrepresented. The "first time on TFAR" point refers to any TFAR, so there's no point there. The + or - points for "similar articles" can be tricky, but I'd have to spend some time looking at what's been on. I might say articles on "radio shows" would be similar, in which case you might get some points, but others might say "broadcast or audio/video shows" would be similar, in which case you might lose points. I don't think Mutual Radio Network is really very similar. Much as I'd love to, I won't argue that the Marx Bros. are basic subject matter. My best guess, so far, is 1 point. Smallbones (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that if any TFA runs that you are a significant contributor to, you don't get a first time point after that, even if the article is a Raul selection and didn't come through TFA/R. The idea of that point is to feature the work of people whose work has not appeared main page, not to give everybody a free point to use. Good luck with the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blurbs

Raul once put a helpful post here about how to write the proposed blurbs; I can't find it in archives (anyone?), but we should keep it prominently displayed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, it is on the request page under "Suggested formatting", and we have been referring people to it when needed. I wonder if we should add that alt text should be added to the proposed main page image and also all images in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt!

The request should have a blurb that uses the same formatting as the ones used on the main page, specifically: there are no endlines, reference tags, alternate names, or extraneous bolding, birth/death dates are trimmed down to year only, there is a bolded link the title to the article, and a total length of roughly 1200 characters or less.

Needs clarification for all readership:

1. What's an endline?
2. typo ... bolded link to the title of the article?
3. Does the 1200 characters include spaces ... this should be clear to the uninitiated.
4. Shouldn't we specify, no Fair Use images ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what an endline is, formatting is not my strong suit here (I tend to borrow formatting) as for the rest, clearly the 1200 includes spaces. The typos can be corrected boldly. I think it would be fine to add "No fair use images" without the need for a major discussion, because it is wikipolicy not to use fair use images on the main page. Especially when the article is a long time from its FAC, or it underwent FAC before images were so intensively checked, I think there's a need.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to update it (after we figure out what an endline is)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone know what "endline" is? Tony (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's a "linebreak" i.e. format it as one paragraph only. But I may be wrong. Bencherlite^Talk 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Maybe we could change that to "format as one paragraph" since people obviously aren't getting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless we hear otherwise in the next 24 hours, I say go for it (including all of the points above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It might also be helpful if we could find Raul's original post; where did it go? I reviewed the last three archives ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Being the impatient and undisciplined type, I went for it now. I also added something about alt text (which SandyGeorgia was good enough to remind me about on my talk page). Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! Not all editors will understand "markup"; I think we need to explicity say that spaces count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest omitting the image markup, which may cause incredible confusion to potential nominators. Perhaps just say "The image formatting should be identical to those presently used for TFA images, and shall include alternative text.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I like that ... it shows exactly how to do that, meaning less work for us/Raul in fixing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Ack" mean "Acknowledge" (yes) or "Aaack!" (no)? I'm of two minds about specifying markup, as it does clutter. Another possibility is to give a handy pointer to the markup for . I did that; this change also mentioned spacing and wikilinked to WP:MARKUP to address other issues mentioned above. I left in the markup for now; perhaps we can try it that way for a while, and try it without the markup for a while, and see which works better? Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, one thing that might be helpful is if you would pick an old (hence, now unprotected TFA blurb) and add alt text; it could serve as an example. Unless I'm completely blind <ahem>, today's example doesn't include alt text, so it's not a good example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)e

I thought of that, but decided that it would be harder to maintain, as we'd have to update the old blurb whenever we change blurb style. Since I've fixed all the TFAs from October 25 on, the current method should start working in about 31 hours; that's soon enough (and I can repair any poorly-formatted submissions that come in during the meantime). Eubulides (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now that I see how the cascade protection works on today's and tomorrow's TFA, you're right. Thanks Julian and Eubulides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Found: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing some of the blurbs here, I see they don't always comply with Raul's instructions (meaning he probably has to rewrite them). Perhaps regular page followers could begin to ping the nominators when the blurbs are off? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)