Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article: Difference between revisions

Archives (of Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, which redirects here): Template talk:Feature/archive1, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/archive 2

Please place new requests at the TOP of the list so they are easier to spot. The order should be newest requests (top) to oldest requests (bottom). There is no need to "support" requests.

No special requests for a date, but when/if this is slated for a future date, perhaps someone could notify me on my MA talk page. I neglect Wikipedia sometimes and would like to know ahead of time so I can 'rally the troops' in case of increased vandal attacks on that day. I also have a particularly comprehensive article in mind for the Article of the Week when that day comes around. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom, just received featured status. Requesting for April 29 (her birthday), and a period two months after receiving featured status. --Fallout boy 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guqin (or simply qin) is the modern name for a plucked fretless seven-stringed Chinese musical instrument of the zither family. It has been played since ancient times, and has traditionally been favored by scholars and the literati as an instrument of great subtlety and refinement. The qin has a recorded history of at least 3,000 years. Early qins exist from around 2,500 years. The body of the qin is constructed out of two different woods (paulownia and catalpa) that are hollowed out and joint together before lacquer is applied to the surface.

The qin has a special notation system, which is at least 1,500 years old. There are over 3,500 different melodies, preserved in around 130 tablature collections, called qinpu. The method of playing the qin involves plucking the strings with the right hand, while the left hand either presses and slides up and down the strings to alter the pitch, or lightly touching a string at a prescribed point causing a harmonic to sound. There are less than 3,000 qin players in the world, only a few have totally mastered it. Because of its focus on the intellect, the qin has declined in the past century as a result of political disturbances from views that it is a by-product of feudalism. However, the qin has been on a revival since the last decade and has gained a lot of interest, especially among Westerners who find its gentle sounds, and its philosophy of peace and being at one with nature very appealing in the stressful and artificial constraints of the modern world. (more...)

Self-nominated. I truly believe this article has been well written and researched, and it has been approved by some well-known qin players that I know of. Thus, I think it should appear on the main page to inform the public a little bit about this wonderfully unique and beautiful sounding instrument. --CharlieHuang 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a FA for several months now but hasn't made it to the main page. Might be nice on March 17th for the Irish theme. Seabhcán 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently became a featured article, and Pink Floyd are too legendary to not appear on the mainpage! :D Also it's a very interesting read. K Thanks. Agent Blightsoot 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a couple references, as they won't go anywhere on the Main Page. Staxringold 12:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that the photo be replaced with Image:Pink_Floyd_classic.jpg. CG 22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We generally prefer free images to fair use ones where possible. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! --PopUpPirate 23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn (Dutch: Kaap Hoorn; Spanish: Cabo de Hornos; named for the city of Hoorn in the Netherlands) is the southernmost headland of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago of southern Chile; it is widely considered to be the southern tip of South America. Cape Horn is the most southerly of the great capes, and marks the northern boundary of the Drake Passage; for many years it was a major milestone on the clipper route, by which sailing ships carried trade around the world. However, the waters around the cape are particularly hazardous, due to strong winds, large waves, and icebergs; these dangers have made it notorious as a sailors' graveyard.

Today, the Panama Canal has greatly reduced the need for cargo ships to travel via the Horn. However, sailing around the Horn is widely regarded as one of the major challenges in yachting, and a number of recreational sailors continue to sail this route, sometimes as part of a circumnavigation. Several prominent ocean yacht races sail around the world via the Horn, notably the Vendée Globe, and speed records for round-the-world sailing follow the same route.

Partial self-nom: recently featured; I think it's an interesting subject. — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anniversary is in mid-March, but I would accept any day before then as well. Palm_Dogg 07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan State Capitol is the building housing two branches of the government of the U.S. state of Michigan and is located in the state capital of Lansing in Ingham County. The present structure, at the intersection of Capitol and Michigan Avenues, is a National Historic Landmark that currently houses the chambers and offices of the Michigan Legislature as well as the offices of the governor of Michigan and lieutenant governor. Historically, this is the third building to house the Michigan state government. The first state capitol was located in Detroit, the original capital of Michigan, and was relocated to Lansing in 1849, due to the need to develop the western portions of the state and for easy defense from British troops stationed in Windsor, Ontario. The present capitol building, preceded by a temporary wood frame structure, was dedicated in January 1879 and is designed in a Neoclassical architectural style. The capitol was rededicated in 1992 after a three-year restoration project.

Recently elevated to Feature Article status, the first U.S. State Capitol from the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols to reach this designation, with the assistance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan. No specific date requested. Jtmichcock 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The written history of New Jersey began with the exploration of the Jersey Coast by Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524, though the region had been settled for millennia by Native Americans. At the time of European contact, the area was populated by tribes of Lenape. The New Jersey region soon came under the control of the Swedes and the Dutch resulting in a struggle in which the Dutch were victorious. However, the Dutch colony of New Netherland was seized by the British in 1664. New Jersey was one of the original 13 colonies that joined the American Revolutionary War in 1776. It signed the Articles of Confederation in 1779 with Princeton acting as the nation's capital for four months in 1783. New Jersey became independent after the American Revolutionary War, in which several crucial battles were fought in New Jersey resulting in American victories. In 1787, New Jersey was the third state to join the United States of America.

Nominated Feburary 10, 2005 by ZeWrestler ^Talk. Work of the New Jersey Project.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala is a state on the tropical Malabar Coast of South India. Its biodiverse rainforests and backwaters were first settled around 1,000 BCE by proto-Tamil-speaking Dravidians. Contact with the Mauryan Empire and overseas peoples helped spur an indigenous Keralite culture, including kalarippayattu, kathakali, and Onam. First dominated by the Cheras and Namboothiris, Kerala was later contested by colonial powers and native rulers before gaining statehood in November 1, 1956. Social reforms enacted by Kochi and Travancore kingdoms — and spurred by such leaders as Narayana Guru — were continued by post-Independence governments, making Kerala among the Third World's longest-lived, healthiest, and most literate regions. Kerala's 3.1 crore (31 million) people now experience a stable democratic socialist political system and unusually equitable gender relations. (more...)

--no particular date in mind. Rama's Arrow 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request: please do not schedule Kerala for WP:TFA until I've made this blurb more comprehensive. I'll strike out this comment when I'm done adjusting it. Saravask 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your effort into getting the blurb as much comprehensive as possible, I wish to remind that usually, the blurb is simply the lead section with a more link to the article. Of course, this assumes that the lead section is "comprehensive enough." -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundar, there is nothing wrong with adapting the lead — indeed, the at Wikipedia:Today's featured article it states WP:TFA makes use of an "adapted lead section" (emphasis added). On the other hand, there is certainly a problem when half the blurb discusses Kerala's located w.r.t. neighboring states/countries and the last half only discusses history. Saravask 02:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Sorry about my misinformed suggestion. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Kat is a comic strip created by George Herriman that appeared in U.S. newspapers between 1913 and 1944. Set against a dreamlike portrayal of Herriman's vacation home of Coconino County, Arizona, Krazy Kat's mixture of surrealism, innocent playfulness, and poetic language have made it a favorite of comics aficionados and art critics for more than eighty years. Many cartoonists have cited Krazy Kat as a major influence.

The strip focuses on the relationship triangle between its title character, a carefree cat of indeterminate gender, her antagonist Ignatz Mouse, and the protective police-dog Officer Bull Pupp. Krazy nurses an unrequited love for Ignatz, but he despises her and constantly schemes to throw a brick at her head; for unknown reasons, Krazy takes this as a sign of affection. Officer Pupp, as Coconino County's administrator of law and order, makes it his unwavering mission to interfere with Ignatz's brick-tossing plans and lock the mouse in the county jail. (more...)

--Self-nomination. No particular date for Krazy Kat in mind, anytime in February or March where it fits in. Andrew Levine 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Miami, Florida first started more than a thousand years ago by the Tequesta Indians. Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and his men first visited and claimed the area around Miami, Florida for Spain in 1566. Fort Dallas was built in the mid-1800's and the area became a site of fighting during the Second Seminole War. After the Great Freeze of 1894, Julia Tuttle, a local citrus grower, convinced Henry Flagler, a railroad tycoon, to expand his Florida East Coast Railroad to Miami and on July 28, 1896 Miami was officially incorporated as a city. Miami prospered during the 1920s but weakened after the 1926 Miami Hurricane and the Great Depression in the 1930s. After Fidel Castro rose to power in 1959, many Cubans immigrated to Miami, further increasing the population. In the 1980s and 1990s, various crises struck South Florida, among them the Arthur McDuffie beating and the riot caused by it, Hurricane Andrew, and the Elián González uproar. (more...)</

• Self nom, sometime before March 1st if possible Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. Request date of February 23. If this is not possible then sometime between now and February 29 will do. Thanks. - TomStar81 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. No particular date requested. - Liberatore(T) 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination of an article that made featured status today. No particular date in mind for it. Though Thursday, February 16, is the filing deadline for the primary. That's a peg. PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-Nomination for no particular date. Recently featured article that I just want to keep moving along. :) Staxringold 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Should go up on St. Patricks Day... the next large "drinking holiday".  ALKIVAR™ 06:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Request amended because that's a brilliant idea. :) Staxringold 12:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to rain on anyone's parade, but is it really wise to have this not-particularly-Irish (OK, the lead character's name is Malone, but so what?) pop-culture drinking reference on for the Irish national holiday? I understand the playful spirit this was suggested in, but the combination does coincide with some ugly stereotypes. I know it might sound silly, but we have had complaints in the past about similar things.--Pharos 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we, we being the world, need to stop being so politically correct about everything.Rlevse 10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a featured article on Fred Phelps, why would putting this article on the front page be more offensive that that article (which is quite informative, I'm not trying to insult its author(s))? First off, Saint Patrick's Day is also a Christian holiday. Second, the article itself says:

In many parts of the U.S., Britain, and Australia, expatriate Irish, those of Irish descent, and ever-growing crowds of people with no Irish connections but who may proclaim themselves "Irish for a day" also celebrate St. Patrick's Day, usually by consuming large quantities of alcoholic beverages, including lager often dyed green, Irish beer, such as Murphys, Smithwicks, Harp or Guinness, or other Irish liquors such as Irish whiskey, Irish Coffee or Baileys Irish Cream, by wearing at least one article of green-colored clothing, and by listening to Irish folk music. (Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch once proclaimed himself "Ed O'Koch" for the day and is one of the most famous people of non-Irish descent to publicly revel on the holiday.)

I'd be fine with it just appearing on some day, but (like it or not) Saint Patrick's Day is a big drinking holiday so why not feature a somewhat related article? Staxringold 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that Cheers is/was in Boston, the city with the longest tradition of a St. Patricks Day celebration in the USA, and home to the largest Irish population in the US.  ALKIVAR™ 18:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand and appreciate the "fun" nature of the date, and that many people do in fact celebrate St. Patrick's Day as a "drinking holiday". In fact I am quite certain that no offense is at all intended; I'm just concerned that given past experiences we can likely expect some sensitive souls to complain at Talk:Main Page on the day of FA, and if we're unlucky this could even become another Wikipedia "media incident". I don't know, maybe I'm being overcautious, but it seems that if anything on the Main Page can ever potentially be interpreted as an ethnic slight, someone will interpret it that way.--Pharos 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos: I appreciate your concern, but this is what I call another case of "dictatorship of the minority" or "political correctness run amuck". You're simply not going to please everyone in this case. Now, I am NOT saying always ignore the minority group in whatever situation, but to me this case is like the college in Ohio that banned Christmas trees, negating the rights of 99.99% of the school to celebrate Christmas, because one Muslim complained about it. I hope that in that case he couldn't celebrate his Islamic holidays on campus either as that would only be fair in such a case. If you don't put Cheers up on Paddy's day, some will complain, if you do, come will complain, so what to do....??? I know more people, Irish and non-Irish who'd love Cheers to be up on Paddy's day, so that's what I vote for. Rlevse 11:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for the support Rlevse, and I would love to see Cheers on the front page, I just feel like I should remind everybody (given your last sentence) that "There is no need to "support" requests." (from the top o' the page). Staxringold 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Self nomination I've been one of the people working to build up the depth of OpenBSD related content on Wikipedia, we just recently got the article to featured quality and so the next step in the process is to work toward the front page. The article itself is on one of the most extremist of operating systems available, one deeply focused on security and robustness rather than feature growth, it's idealistic view on licence purity is also notable as it is the only open source operating system with a strong rule on what can be included in the base system. Janizary 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there diffrent rules for what images can be used on the main page as opposed to article space? If there are woudl they prevent either of the pictures in the article using the puffer fish form being used? Both of them are better I think. Dalf | Talk 08:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my thought too, Puffy would be more appropriate than a quite nondescript screenshot. NicM 09:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nondescript and unreadable. The lead picture is nice though. Dalf | Talk 10:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BB and changed it. Although this image doesn't appear in the article itself (except as part of the logo image), just in Puffy (mascot). Also fixed a minor change in text. NicM 10:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Requested date - I think that April 30th would be a good date for the front page, since the next release of OpenBSD will theoretically be May 1st. Janizary 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The allotment system (Swedish: indelningsverket) was a system used in Sweden for keeping a trained army at all times. This system came into use in around 1640, and was replaced in the early 1900s by the Swedish Armed Forces conscription system. Two different allotment systems have been in use in Sweden; they are the old allotment system (äldre indelningsverket) and the new allotment system (yngre indelningsverket), the latter often referred to as just "the allotment system". The soldiers who were part of these systems were known as "tenement soldiers" (indelta soldater, the Swedish term, does not have the same meaning) due to the small tenements or crofts alloted to them. Originally, the allotment system was only a name for the system used to pay officers, but later it referred to the whole organization created to provide soldiers to the army, known as det ständiga knekthållet (literally "the permanent soldier household").

Self-nom, historical article on a unique system only used by Sweden, a system which had a large part in making Sweden one of the great powers of Europe in the 17th century. I have no particular date in mind. -- Elisson • Talk 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makuria (Arabic: al-Mukurra or al-Muqurra) was a kingdom located in what is today Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. It was one of a group of Nubian kingdoms that emerged in the centuries after the fall of the Kindgom of Meroë, which had dominated the region from around 800 BC to AD 350. Makuria originally covered the area along the Nile River from the Third Cataract to somewhere between the Fifth and Sixth Cataracts. It also had control over the trade routes, mines, and oases to the east and west. Its capital was Dongola (or Dunqulah), and the kingdom is sometimes known by the name of its capital.

By the end of the 6th century it had converted to Christianity, but in the 7th century Egypt was conquered by the Islamic armies, and Nubia was cut off from the rest of Christendom. In 651 an Arab army invaded, but it was repulsed and a treaty known as the baqt was signed creating a relative peace between the two sides that lasted until the 13th century. Makuria expanded, annexing its northern neighbour Nobatia either at the time of the Arab invasion or during the reign of King Merkurios. The period from roughly 750 to 1150 saw the kingdom stable and prosperous, in what has been called the "Golden Age". However, increased aggression from Egypt, the Islamicization and Arabization of the populace, and internal discord saw the state collapse in the 14th century.

No particular date in mind. This is just a recent FA on a fairly obscure topic; I don't want to see it forgotten. The image Image:Christian Nubia.png might work better, but I know Raul doesn't like putting maps on the main page. — BrianSmithson 19:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps don't make good main page images. And the tablet isn't a great one either. Are there any suitable images available - showing any Makurian cities, kings, battles, 'etc? Raul654 07:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like the tablet. Dalf | Talk 08:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be *some* image besides the tablet that could be used to illustrate this article - one of hte emporerors, or a battle, or something? Raul654 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go with Raul654 on this. The tablet gives you no idea what the article is about other than it's old. Even a map would be better--at least then the location would be nailed down. The recent main page FA on India had a map. Rlevse 12:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man is a song by British rock group The Smiths, released as their second single in October of 1983 on the indie label Rough Trade. Because it was a single, the song originally wasn't included on the UK and European versions of the Smiths' self-titled debut. It first appeared as part of the Hatful of Hollow compilation (in the form of a Peel radio session recording), and then on the American release version of The Smiths. Because of a WEA re-issue of the Smiths's studio albums in 1992, all subsequent pressings of the album feature it as track #6. The song itself was also re-released in 1992 as a single from the band's Greatest Hits album.

The song was composed by guitarist Johnny Marr and singer/lyricist Morrissey. Musically, the song is defined by Marr's bright jangle pop guitar riff and Morrissey's characteristic vocals.The rhythm section of Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce provides an unusually danceable beat, featuring a motownesque bassline. Though only moderately successful on its release (reaching #25 on the UK charts), today it is widely considered to be a classic and is one of the most popular songs in the band's catalog.

Live Forever 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the announcement that The West Wing has been cancelled, its finale airing May 14, I thought it might be appropriate for the article to be featured on that date. I know it's a ways in advance, but I had hoped to put it on this date since I started the FAC. Thanks! — Scm83x ^talk 20:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State University (MSU) is a public university in East Lansing, Michigan. As the first agricultural college in the United States, it served as a model for future Land Grant colleges under the 1862 Morrill Act. Best known for its academic programs in education and agriculture, MSU pioneered the studies of packaging and music therapy. MSU's study abroad program is the largest of any single-campus university in the nation, and offers more than 200 programs in more than 60 countries on all continents including Antarctica. Following the introduction of the Morrill Act, the college became co-educational and expanded its curriculum beyond agriculture. After World War II, the number of students tripled as the institution became a major university. Today, MSU has 45,166 students on a 5,200 acre (2100 ha) campus, making it the nation's sixth-largest university. MSU's Division I sports teams are nicknamed the Spartans. MSU's men's basketball team won the NCAA National Championship in 1979 and 2000. In recent years, MSU's successes on the basketball court have led to student riots that have strained relations between the students and the permanent residents of East Lansing.

Self nomination. I just got this article promoted. I request no specific date. — Lovelac7 05:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympic Games are an international multi-sport event taking place every four years and comprising summer and winter games. Originally held in ancient Greece, they were revived by a French nobleman, Pierre Frèdy, Baron de Coubertin in the late 19th century. The Games of the Olympiad, also known as the Summer Olympics, have been held every fourth year since 1896, with the exception of the years during the World Wars. A special edition for winter sports, the Olympic Winter Games, was established in 1924. Originally these were held in the same year as the Summer Olympics, but starting with 1994 the Winter Games are in between, two years after the Games of the Olympiad.

Raul654 has been willing, in recent months, to feature on the main page articles appropriate to that date (e.g. Rosa Parks on December 1, Claudius on January 24). I propose that no date would be better to feature Olympic Games than the opening of the Turin winter games. Andrew Levine 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for a while. I've decided not to feature this during hte olympics, when it will be clearly marked from ITN for the better part of two weeks. It's a bit more blatant intrusion into ITN than I am comfortable with. Raul654 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one ever wants to up the geek appeal of the Main Page, this would do it. Besides, it's been stable for an awfully long time, and it could probably do with a bit of senseless vandalism to even out its karma. The relevant dates in the article (the day the Laws were set down and Asimov's birthday) have already passed, so it could run whenever.

Apropos the spoo discussion below, I wouldn't mind this running on April Fool's, and I've probably put more work into it than anybody else. Not to denigrate the nominator's viewpoint—it just doesn't bother me personally all that much! (If it hadn't already made the main page, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius would be the perfect April Fool's choice, I think.) Anville 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having something factual but just a little too fun and geeky for any other day's main page. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The incredibly unique and fun article about the fictional foodstuff, this would make an interesting read on any day. I am specifically requesting the January 7th, 2005 slot as this marks the 11th anniversary of the infamous "Spoo post" by J. Michael Straczynski that has had so much significance to many Babylon 5 fans. (Since denied). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image is a crop of the one in the article to better highlight the Spoo in the smaller space; the lead is tweaked to put in more info up front. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is likely to have been evaluated closely only by serious fans of the show, I wonder about how well it actually represents the standard of "best WP has to offer." I also feel strongly that this is going to be a topic of extremely limited interest to those who are unversed in Babylon 5. It seems to me to be a very poor choice for mainpage article placement. BYT 18:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BYT, if you actually read the (very, very extensive) FAC for this, you would see that it was entirely legit, had support from a large variety of contributors (not just B5 fans) - long time and highly respected contributors as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but who else is going to "get" it? Or care about it enough to finish reading the article? If it were plugged in on April 1, however, (see Raul's note below), I could see a certain tongue-in-cheek appeal. :) BYT 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to "get" - the article is straight-forward, easy to read and understand - if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been promoted (the version now is nearly identical to the promoted version from three months ago). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of starting a flame-war, my personal feeling is that this would make the ideal FA for April 1. Raul654 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded! April 1 is pretty much the only day of the year in which poor Spoo is going to get on the front page. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is part of the reason that I feel such a placement is a slap in the face, though unintended, to the huge amount of work I put into the article. I do not doubt for one second the good faith behind Raul's suggestion, but main paging it on April 1 makes the article seem like a joke, which it isn't, and will likely be covered up by a nihelartikel anyway like last years debacle (I'm not treading new ground here, as the April Fools Cunundrum was "discussed" last year). Obviously, though, this isn't my decision and I have no say, but whatever the decision is, it should be made early to avoid the problems from last year. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know I think it could be a good way to show a sense of humor about April 1st without resorting to vandalism, stupidity, or untruth. You have to admit the topic is a little silly (this comming fomr one of the bigger Bab 5 fans of all time). Dalf | Talk 07:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting I know knowing of Babylon5, an FA on a fictional food is of no interest to me whatsoever. 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently became featured, after much, much, MUCH hard work. Phelps and his church/group/cult have been in the news quite a bit lately, as they have picketed nearly every single funeral for a US soldier killed in Iraq since the beginning of 2005. Most people, though, only know about Phelps in a roundabout sort of way, ie, he's the guy who pickets funerals, or, he's the leader of the group that's been at the military funerals. With the paradox of him being in the news so much lately, yet so little information about him known by the average reader who might otherwise be aware of him as a concept, this is a very timely and informative article to be featured on the front page.

I don't know how I feel about this, but I thought I would mention a worry I have. This guy is litigious, really really litigious. His whole family is lawyers and they regularly sue people in Kansas for absolutely no reason at all. I suspect that if Mr. Phelps becomes aware of this article, he will sue someone about it. I'm not trying to scare people, but he has sued both the Wichita Eagle and Topeka Capital Journal regarding stories they ran about him. It might be worth being extra careful about verification on this article before it is featured on the main page. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the article is great, I don't think his face should be on the front page. It's almost a Catch-22, I guess, he doesn't need more publicity, but people should be more educated about him. Oh, by the way, I'm the one who hosts the "CNN style obituary" found in the links section of the article (The guy who contributed heavily to the Wikipedia article wrote the obit and I designed it). It has been up for 10 or 11 months, received thousands of hits, and I have not once got a letter from Phelps or anybody (which is both disappointing and good at the same time). Anyway, I'm blabbing... --Darkdan 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A disaster waiting to happen. Not at all what the project needs. We've had major PR problems over factchecking -- now we're basically planning on tweaking the nose of this lawsuit-happy extremist. PS: Major sourcing problems. I cite only one:

One of Fred's only memories of his mother is the fact that since she was the only woman on their street who owned a musical instrument (a piano); she used to push it to the front of the house, open all the doors and windows, and play for the pleasure of the neighbors.

Um ... how do we know this is one of his only memories? Are we sure we don't mean to say "In an article/interview in Publication X, Phelps said that one of his only memories of his mother was ..."? And did you notice the tortured sentence structure and cutting-edge use of the semicolon?

Not ready for prime time, by a longshot, and I'm not sure it ever will be. BYT 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some legitimate concerns about this one (esp. the potential for a lawsuit) so I'm going to put this one on the backburner for a while. Raul654 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got featured status, has enough "real-world" appeal to be on the front page. Date doesn't matter, but November 23 might be nice.--Sean Jelly Baby? 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Lost out to a Gwen Stefani song ;) Any other date any seven days after 23 November would work, as those were all Saturdays ;) 30 November, 7 December, 14 December...etc. Oh and support :) --JohnDBuell 12:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Raul, I have taken the liberty of making a list of the FAs that were not on the Main Page as of August 18, 2004 and have still not been there, and are still listed. I sincerely hope you are giving priority to these.

• Quatermass and the Pit
• Louis Armstrong
• Roy Orbison Featured on 6 December 2005
• Igor Stravinsky
• 2004 Democratic National Convention
• Charles Graner No longer an FA
• Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. No longer an FA
• Privy Council of the United Kingdom (page was moved, this is the new title, still an FA)
• Tynwald Day
• Ralph Yarborough
• Hereditary peer
• Order of the Thistle
• Olympic Games
• ASCII
• C programming language
• Java programming language Featured on 17 December 2005
• Markup language
• Phonograph cylinder
• Quantum computer
• Telephone exchange This was an FA under the old name, but has been moved to Central office, does that mean it should go back through the FA process? --JohnDBuell 04:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Earl Andrew - talk 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know people like to have recent FAs on the front page, but can we recognise some more of these old ones too, please? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banging my drum again, but there are now lists of the featured articles by date promoted, also listing if (and when) they were on the front page: see, for example, Wikipedia:Featured_articles_nominated_in_2003. The older ones surely deserve their day in the sun. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And again - go on, some of these deserve it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Roy Orbison is any indication of quality, I think this proposed approach to "dealing with the old" is problematic, as FA quality and standards have apparently improved significantly in a short time (even, in certain subject areas, over the last few weeks). That's certainly been the case from my personal observation of specific articles, and the comments of others from here and there (e.g. WP:FAC, WP:FARC) would seem to support this view. I'll try to take a look at other articles in this list, but for me, at present quite active in FAC, the practical requirements of FAC seem to be multiplying. Almost identical work is required not only in FAC, but TFA, FARC/reviewing current FAs, and Peer Review. This kind of undercuts the perceived value of working on FAC, when substandard FAs are simultaneously appearing on the Main Page, and there are likely dozens, maybe hundreds more waiting in the FA collection... ("Comprehensiveness", as interpreted a reasonably acute and/or knowledgeable-on-the-topic reader/FAC reviewer, seems to be the main issue with old FAs, with writing quality coming in second...)

Also, a bad Main Page article can put more stress on the FAC system, by creating precedent that encourages lower quality nominations. This is particularly...bad with pop culture stuff, like recent songs and artists, because writing "encyclopedia articles" for many of these simply hasn't been done before, so FAs are often the only examples to go by...).

Another way to put this, if I want to work on improving FAs, should I focus my efforts on FARC before FAC? --Tsavage 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of people who read and contribute to WP:FAC, your individual contribution would probably have more effect if you concentrated on reviewing old FAs and nominated the poor ones on WP:FARC or WP:FAR. It has to be said that some of these old FAs still compare well - for example, I think Order of the Thistle would pass FAC today, which shows how valuable Emsworth's contribution has been.

Good places to start would be the older entries in the Featured log, and Taxman's list of featured articles with possible references problems. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my last was a mainly rhetorical question. Put another way, is it more useful to bail water (remove existing bad FAs), or to plug the leaks (FAC process ensuring more bad FAs don't get through)? I'd rather plug leaks, and that also seems to be most useful, as the "bad FAs" will remain more or less static (subject, of course, to ever-improving standards), and the ship doesn't seem to be sinking. ;) From my recent experience, I don't think "given the number of people who read and contribute to WP:FAC" means another pair of eyeballs is not needed. In fact, I haven't nearly found myself simply going with the majority on each of the FAC I've commented on, therefore, perhaps my input is not redundant. I believe the Main Page FA is really the thing we are discussing here. As for that, ensuring that only currently valid FAs make it to Main Page sounds like a reasonable goal... Thanks for the feedback! --Tsavage 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention the RSS feed somewhere, probably as a link to Wikipedia:Syndication. See Wikipedia:General complaints#RSS Feed for Featured Articles. Bovlb 14:37:25, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

Here are two templates that should be of interest to those with new FA articles either about to appear on the front page or that have appeared there. Simply insert the date the article appeared/will appear on the front page and paste the template into the talk page.

Template:Mainpage date to come

and

Template:Mainpage date

Thanks to Hydnjo for coming up with this.--Alabamaboy 19:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As much as I would love full credit, this template is actually the result of a collaboration between Rick Block and myself. hydnjo talk 22:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to create the 2006 TFA archive sometime in the next few weeks to a month. If anybody has any ideas on improvments, then please tell me about them. :) --mav 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not to step on any toes, but I have created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2006 and Template:TodaysFABar2006, heavily modelled on the ones for 2005. I hope they all work as they should. One change I think we can safely make is to dispense with the templates like Template:TFAforJanuary2005, using JanuaryCalendar2006Source directly (perhaps the ones from earlier years can be subst:ed and deleted?).

Lots of subpages need filling up (most of the daily pages for January, and the monthly and daily pages for the other months; for some reason, a few in September 2006 already existed). -- ALoan (Talk) 03:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... is a request like this one um, bogus? The actress's birthday was in no way relevant to the (sycophantic) article that somehow made it onto the main page. BYT 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About as relevant as 30 January is to the date of execution of Charles I of England - see above. In fact, assuming that 30 January was old style and so incorrect anyway these days, slightly more relevant. Is there a problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. He was the king of England, and that was a notable historical event. She is a B-list actress whose birthdate is of moment only to members of her immediate family. And, perhaps, her official or unofficial press agents. BYT 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is an "unofficial press agent"? You seem to be suggesting that Extraordinary Machine has some improper motive in writing up the article, getting it accepted as a featured article, and then getting it featured on the front page, or that Raul654 has some improper motive in accepting the unanimous support with no objections (save for the comment that it may have too many references) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KaDee Strickland or the suggestion that 14 December is an appropriate day for KaDee Strickland to appear on the Main Page? Assume good faith. As I have said before, if you think there is a problem with the article, discuss it on the talk page; if you think it does not deserve featured status, bring it up on WP:FARC. (I see that you are doing both, actually, and I am sure the article will be improved as a result.)

As it happens, I don't care one jot for this particular article or its subject, but the bottom line is that pretty much any article that is notable enough to avoid being deleted is capable of being featured, and pretty much any featured article is capable of being featured (for one day only, mind) on the Main Page. Certainly, this article is in a much better state than Roy Orbison (which was also on the Main Page recently, and is now in danger of losing its featured article status). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All good points, and thank you for sharing them.
• I'm afraid you're changing the subject, though. It was totally inappropriate to assign this minor actress's birthday the same editorial level of importance as the date of the execution of Charles I of England.
• Running the article on her birthday thus served no legitimate editorial purpose. (What I'm trying to figure out is whether it served as a token of thanks for her participation in submitting Original research for the the article, which is, for all the world, what it looks like from a distance, though I personally have no idea what actually happened.)
• Running a front-page puff piece on a minor actress's birthday is the kind of thing a website devoted exclusively to singing this actress's praises would have done. We're not that kind of website. BYT 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. My pearls of wisdom are worth what you paid for them ;)

I don't think I am changing the subject - you mentioned press agents. I'm still not entirely clear who you think is a press agent, or indeed what an unofficial press agent is (do you mean a fan? I have no problem at all with fans writing featured articles, so long as they meet the criteria).

At the moment, Charles I has not been assigned a main page date, although I imagine that Raul654 will accede to the request in the absence of a pressing reason to do otherwise. Why shouldn't a biographical featured article appear on the main page on the subject's date of birth or death?

Do you have any evidence of original research? From my brief review of the article talk page, the author has said that the quotes all come from external sources. The article certainly says quite a lot about not very much, but so what. Surely one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that we can have extensive articles on almost any topic. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is actually pretty straightforward. I think it was a bad call to run this article on her birthday, given that she's utterly obscure and the birthday has no editorial relevance whatsoever. Either you agree that that was a bad call or you don't. I'd be curious about your position, though, inasmuch as Raul isn't answering the phone on this.

Faced with a similarly obscure living subject, whose birthdate connects in no way to the article content, I feel we should not go the vanity press route and run the article on his/her birthday. Agree? Disagree?

And no -- I don't have any evidence of original research. If I did, I would be filing an RfC. It's all circumstantial, and I realize it's very likely that I'm wrong. But it still smells funny, and until I see cites on her quotes, I'm unconvinced. (And by the way, even if she did not participate in the article in any way, which is what has been claimed, we are still faced with the problems that the article that showed up on the mainpage yesterday a) might as well have been written by her press agent, and b) sailed through the process with massive citation and neutrality problems. BYT 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. I try not to second-guess Raul654. He has the job; he makes the calls. But I really don't understand your position. You say she is obscure, and so you say we should not put her article on the main page on her birthday. But if she is so obscure, surely it does not matter when the article is on the main page? In any event, it seems to me that the birthday does connect with the article content. Rather than pandering to the vanity of the subject, surely we are, in effect, boasting "look: it is X's birthday today, and we have this great article about them"?

If you suspect (let alone have evidence of) original research and/or POV, surely you should (a) discuss it on the talk page and/or (b) edit the article to delete it and/or (c) propose the article on WP:FARC. I'm not sure how much good an RfC is going to do.

Anyway, back to the original question: as far as I can see, the editor, the voters on FAC and Raul654 all acted in good faith. End of story. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My position -- which you claim not to understand, but which even a cursory review of this conversation will reveal -- is that a mainpage article should connect to a specific date when there is a legitimate editorial reason for doing so. Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is the way you yourself explained this matter, back on Raul654's talk page.

There was no legitimate editorial reason in play here, even though you appear to want to talk around that fact and Raul654 has taken a vow of silence. BYT 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand - you seem to be suggesting that we should avoid putting a biographical featured article on the Main Page on a date that some people (me included) think is relevant to the subject of the article (that is, the subject's date of birth or death). If you think the date is not relevant, why does it matter? Would you have objected to it appearing on 13 December or 15 December?

I can quite understand Raul654 staying silent - he does not need to explain his decisions. It is a bit late to ask him to change is mind now, two days later. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: If you think the date is not relevant, why does it matter?

Because giving KaDee Strickland a birthday present of front-page media coverage on a global media source ...

...or appearing to give KaDee Strickland a birthday present of front-page media coverage on a global media source...

...smacks of bias and ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a pro da machine, a vanity press, or an advertising medium.

Now, I think that's sufficiently clear. Or is there another variation on "I really don't understand what you're saying" in the pipeline here? BYT 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...featuring Wikipedia on the main page on January 15, Wikipedia day and en's 5th anniversary? -- Seth Ilys 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of matching mainpage articles up with anniversaries unless the date matches up with a notable historical event that's relevant to the article. That's just one man's view, though.

On a lighter note -- wouldn't it be more entertaining, and perhaps give newcomers a better sense of the project, if we got Criticism of Wikipedia up to featured status -- I think it's a fine article -- and ran that on the mainpage someday? BYT 19:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be graitious self-aggrandizement. (And let's not forget wikipedia:Avoid self references) Raul654 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. BYT 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I though the reason the Wikipedia article hasn't on the Main Page is that it that it would look incredibly pompus. IMHO, we should use NPOV on the Main Page and not advertise ourselves.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great to feature it on the main page on the day the English wikipedia reaches 1 million articles, I don't consider that 'advertising'. --WS 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a first draft of a TFA selection guidelines proposal. It needs much refinement, which I will do the best I am able over the next little while. Meanwhile, hopefully there is some input and feedback... --Tsavage 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a solution in search of a problem Raul654 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage has made it clear he thinks there is a problem, but hasn't gathered wide support for that view. I agree with Raul and the status quo - TFA can and should be virtually any featured article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree complete with Raul654; however, I would like to know what prompted your descion descion to change TFA guidelines. TomStar81 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Bunchofgraphes and Raul. A solution in search of a problem. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Sometimes it takes a solution to identify a problem. The current policy and status quo say that TFA is whatever Raul654 decides it is. In my opinion, putting important content decisions unilaterally in the hands of one person is not good Wikipedia policy. As a, um, good Wikipedian, I'm attempting to be a little proactive about that. --Tsavage 02:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also fails or promoted candiadates on WP:FAC. The reason for having one person is to avoid disputes about what is or is not promoted, and what does or does not appear on the front page. However, there is a team who perform the failures and promotions at WP:FPC and WP:FLC, and who edit WP:DYK and WP:ITN... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably certain that putting an FA on the main page that was only nominated for FA status 17 days ago (€2 commemorative coins) implies lax standards.

I'm not especially criticising the article itself (and obviously I'm content to have subject matter from my area feature on the main page), but it seems rather premature to put such a recent FA up.

It does seem wrong to have the main page FAs, something that impacts greatly on the public conciousness of Wikipedia, seemingly randomly selected. Also the choices do display the bias of those who choose, whereas a clear set of guidelines (subject area rotation, etc.) would surely mitigate against that.

The current mechanism just doesn't seem, well, professional.

zoney ♣ talk 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like that any day you can stumble across an unexpected article on the main page. It makes it more interesting. When we are promoting FAs fast enough that selection becomes a real issue, then maybe we'll need guidelines. Right now I agree that guidelines are a solution in search of a problem. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that an article has to have been an FA for a long time in order to make the main page; to the contrary, as soon as an article becomes featured, many people request it for the main page (something which I don't particularly care for but can live with). Raul654 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for proposed guidelines: I have some disagreements with proposed selection guidelines:

"Whenever possible, TFAs should deal with primary topics in the general subject areas they concern: "tissue" not "Kleenex", "personal computer" not "Apple Macintosh", "operating system" not "Microsoft Windows XP", "acting" and "motion pictures" not "KaDee Strickland"."

I've always seen the TFA as a way for WP to show that it has comprehensive articles on a wide variety of subjects, and even the most niche of them. I admire your intentions of wanting to separate education from commerce, but if an article has been identified as featured then it should already be written in a verifiable form and neautral tone.

Articles based mainly on sources like news media (newspapers, magazines) or official product literature would generally not meet this standard.

I agree with not using official product literature, but not with dismissing all newspapers and magazines.

FAs should NOT be scheduled in order to create a topical (e.g. current event) tie-in, in fact, that should be actively avoided. No "Christmas" on Dec 25 or anywhere therabouts; no "KaDee Strickland" on KaDee's birthday. In this respect, TFA should demonstrate the quality represented by FAs by deliberately not resorting to common promotional techniques and an appeal to popular trivia.

How is putting a featured article on a person's birthday trivial or a promotional technique? No specific product is being promoted. I'd consider putting a featured article about KaDee Strickland on the main page the day before her movie opens as a promotional technique, but not her birthday.--Fallout boy 20:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (and was it just me, or did the guidelines have a bit of an anti-KaDee Strickland bias?)[reply]

FFS rule creep - I've added some counter-claims on the said page. If an article is good enough to be Featured, it's good enough to "front page" it, else we'll end up with FAC being Peer Review #2. --PopUpPirate 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Korea Times: Wikipedia Features StarCraft Story: is this the first time Wikipedia's choice of FA is the subject of a newspaper article? -- user:zanimum

I strongly object to featuring this on March 3. Despite my objection, this article is now set to be featured. I don't like saving criticism for the 24 hour countdown, so I thought I'd make my objection heard now. See also the article's talk, and my explanation of how fair use works on WT:RFAR. There is no way that we can feature this without changing the way the article uses images now. Either the images are PD and can go on Commons, which is meant for such galleries, or they are fair use and should not be used so excessively in the article at all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]