Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests
|↓||Skip to nominations||↓|
Articles suggested here must already be featured articles that have not previously appeared on the Main Page. Articles do not have to be suggested to appear on the Main Page. Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled.
There may be no more than ten requests on this page for specific dates, and four requests for nonspecific dates. If a section is full, the lowest-scoring nomination in it can be replaced by one with a higher point value (as calculated according to the instructions below), or you can wait for a vacancy, or ask on the talk page for advice.
Today's featured articles (TFAs) are chosen by the TFA coordinator, Bencherlite. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with Bencherlite. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the article will appear on the requested date.
It can be helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), on the talk page pending template up to 1 year before the requested date. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requestors should still nominate the article on this page during the 30-day timeframe.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with Bencherlite on his talk page in the first instance.
Featured article tools:
The point score for a nomination is found by adding the scores for each of the following six criteria:
The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article.
If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination, or if primary editors are no longer active, add a message to the article talk page.
Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date. The archive of previously featured articles is here. If there are already ten date-specific requests or four nonspecific requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following:
Write a blurb using the same formatting as the ones used on the main page; see. Specifically: one paragraph only; no reference tags, alternative names, or extraneous bolding; trim birth/death dates to year only; link to the article title in bold and as the first wikilink in the blurb; total length of blurb when previewed (including spaces) as close as possible to 1,200 characters maximum. Add a suitable free-use image if available; fair use images are not allowed. Use the following syntax for the image:
Nonspecific date article:
Up to four articles may be nominated for use on an unspecified date, rather than being requested for a specific date. TFAs proposed for unspecified dates may be replaced by articles which have higher numbers of points, according to the following rules:
Currently accepting requests from March 26 to April 25.
|Nonspecific 2||Triangulum and Triangulum Australe||northern and southern hemisphere constellations - thought it was worthwhile as a natural pairing on mainpage.||2||0|
|March 27||Spiderland||3||Date relevant; FA since 2007||2||0|
|April 1||Pig-faced women||2||4|
|April 1||Disco Demolition Night||3||2|
|April 1||Rainbow Trout||2||1|
|April 3||Operation Tungsten||2||Date relevant||2||0|
|April 5||Nintendo DSi||3||Date relevant, widely covered||2||0|
|April 8||2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team||1 (haven't checked archives)||Date relevant||5||0|
|April 14||Frank Berryman||3||120th birthday, FA since Oct 2012||1||0|
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.
Nonspecific date nominations
Nonspecific date 1
Nonspecific date 2
- Here I asked Bencherlite about this double of a northern and far southern hemisphere constellation (that are both triangles) - I thought it was worthwhile as a natural pairing for the mainpage. Bencherlite is open to it but thinks they'd be better separate - my take is they're both pretty small and work well as a pair. Not quite as well as , say, Corona Borealis and Corona Australis, however. Anyway, am throwing this out there to see what everyone thinks. i.e. if feasible or uninteresting. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would never say "no" to a joint TFA, but I would prefer to recognize an article that earned their star on their own merits to get their special, separate day in the sun. Both are rather short articles on a rather minor constellation (woo hoo! triangles!) so the attention from a joint TFA probably would be beneficial given their size (hence a really too short blurb of 151 words, 936 characters with spaces). I defer to the consensus that emerges, and would support either a joint TFA as proposed and my preference for separate TFAs. They are both excellent articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. High quality pages, promoted in 2013 and 2012, respectively. Most educational of course, and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE !!! — Cirt (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Question, Cirt, since Casliber and Bencherlite seem to want us TFA commenters to provide counsel...any thoughts on whether to present these two articles separately or as a joint TFA?--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded - and be honest. If folks think this is boring/just doesn't work as a twin nom then let me know. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I think they look great together as a combo. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Casliber: I look at both articles to see whether it was feasible (esp. due to size) to give each a separate day, and think the joint TFA does work better. One caveat...I think we can clarify better which stars belong to which constellation in the process of adding a few more characters to the blurb...too many permutations of Triangulum, Trianguli, etc., caused a bit of uncertainty made me have to read the blurb and articles side by side a few times.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Alright - given I know all the thingies, do you wanna have a go at tweaking the blurb? Or shall I? Happy either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment How about digging out the randomisation script used during the McCain/Obama double-header, and apply it to this, so the reader has an equal chance of seeing Triangulum and Triangulum Australe are two small constellations named for the pattern of their brightest stars, located in the northern and far southern celestial hemispheres respectively or Triangulum Australe and Triangulum are two small constellations named for the pattern of their brightest stars, located in the southern and northern celestial hemispheres respectively.? I can make a safe bet that as it stands, Wikipedia will get earnest complaints about "northern hemisphere bias"; I well recall a surreal conversation with some aggreived Aussie who wanted to complain—at interminable length—that Wikipedia's maps always had north at the top. It would also avoid the inevitable problem with double-headers, that readers used to Wikipedia conventions assume the first link in the blurb is the TFA and the subsequent ones just background bluelinks, so only click the first link. – iridescent 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 3
Nonspecific date 4
Specific date nominations
- Support. Well sourced music album article. Though hopefully we won't offend readers with arachnophobia. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492:, what do you think of this image licensing-wise? It's not used in the album or band article at the moment but can no doubt be added if it's OK. BencherliteTalk 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not a particularly nice image at 100px, but the license seems okay. Even though the link is pretty much dead, we can usually trust Flickr Reviewer Bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- For Fish Day! And all the points! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support cool choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Support.Well-sourced FA promoted in 2010. High-level quality improvement effort by Iridescent. As an aside, the nomination statement by Iridescent at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pig-faced women/archive1 is most entertaining. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, obviously. – iridescent 05:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Changed to Oppose. Deferring to the wisdom of the original FA nominator, Iridescent. @Iridescent:, do you have a more ideal date in mind for this article's future Main Page appearance? — Cirt (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, but I was there for Wife selling and can say with something approaching certainty that this would be a disaster on April 1 - it's so contentious it will be vandalised and good-faith-censored to hell and back whenever it runs, but coupled with the fuckwittery April Fools attracts it will be unmanageable and require the article either to be on constant watch (which I do not volunteer to do) or locked down completely, Check the histories of previous similar April Fools TFAs. (As an aside, I loathe the "liturgical calendar" element Raul imposed on TFA, and would happily consign April Fools, Halloween and Christmas to the bonfire. Those three days are probably responsible for more grief at TFAR than the rest of the year combined.) – iridescent 06:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, I certainly respect your views, especially for an article on which you were the significant contributor to help bring to WP:FA. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- How does Wehwalt feel about his disco inferno running instead? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mixed feelings. Just because April 1 is so dramatic around here and the outside world knows it. Semi protection at the drop of a hat would be in order. I wouldn't be sorry to see it passed over and run it on July 12 as at least there would be more baseball fans … whatever the community decides is fine, but if they start misbehaving, I'd like it understood that a quick semi-protection is OK because I'm gonna do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly because I oppose all April Fool's Day hoaxes, which have made April 1st the worst day to be on the internet. I'd change it to support if the blurb were written to showcase a hoax or false belief, but I am on the record as being a curmudgeon who thinks that we shouldn't ever be deliberately spreading misinformation, even on April 1st. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, this is the very embodiment of "showcasing a hoax or false belief", unless you're under the impression that were-pigs really did once roam the streets. It's very well documented that a lot of people who should have known better feel for this particular hoax. – iridescent 06:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Do nothing special for April Fools—we're an encyclopedia. Run the most boring article possible as a counter-point to the stupidity of past years. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Disco Demolition Night
- And here's the blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Blurb is 300 characters too long (with spaces). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Bencherlite has asked for discussion of April 1 ideas on this page's talkpage. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. High quality page, promoted to FA in 2013. Certainly educational and most intriguing subject matter. — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support Seems a good 1 April choice. I prefer a factual-but-really weird TFA on April Fools Day to ones which use misleading wording to entertain readers. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose if only because it would do better on July 12, 2014 which would be the 35th anniversary. When we have a clear date-tied event like this, it makes MORE sense to run it on the anniversary itself. April Fools articles would be better to not have a specific date tied to them. --Jayron32 02:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Well-written, no present issues, but as Jayron said, the date's in the wrong place. July 12 isn't too far away is it? Minima© (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK. So if we want to do a serious article, why not run an article about an actual fish on poisson d'avril. Just throwing it out there. --Jayron32 03:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. High quality article, educational and encyclopedic. FA promoted in 2014. Also, SCIENCE !!! — Cirt (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Which one are you supporting, Cirt?
- Hmm... I rather like the meta-ness of it... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Though I prefer this image: File:Rainbow trout transparent.png — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was Supporting for Rainbow trout. — Cirt (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Ignoring the question of whether TFA deserves to be WP:TROUTed, doing so on April 1 is too much of an inside joke. Main page humor needs to be reasonably accessible to all, not just the Wiki-elites. No objection to running this article on a different date. --Allen3 talk 14:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose -- it's a great article and I'd support it at any other date, but it's an inside joke and IMHO not a very funny one to begin with. For an April Fools gag, it's an epic fail.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pixies were first created in a garage in 1986. They were often seen in bars and were known to be "either sweaty or laid back and cool", Pixies did not officially exist after 1993, due to arguments, although one Pixie did become a magician. Despite their death in 1997, Pixies revived in 2004, first re-emerging in Brixton, London. Despite originating in America, Pixies are much more popular in Europe, although they have struck Pixie gold in the USA. The leader of the Pixies is called Black Francis and they are often heard singing about extraterrestrials, surrealism, incest, and biblical violence.
- Both Fools and Horses were created in 1981. Predominantly found in south London, Fools and Horses are obsessed with schemes to get rich, mostly unsuccessful. Appropriately, the Fools and Horses are often found inside a horse's head, one has camel hair, several have Trotters and copies of their Robin are made by Corgi. [NB this article will need some work to get it ready)
- The Kaiser was born in 1911, yet was involved in much of the naval warfare of World War One. Aged just five years, in the Battle of Jutland of 1916, the Kaiser was actually hit, but suffered no lasting damage. At the end of the war, in 1918, the Kaiser was interned and, as the result of a mistake, was sunk to the bottom of the sea by none other than a German Rear Admiral, Ludwig von Reuter. The Kaiser remained on the sea bed at Scapa Flow, off the coast of Scotland for around ten years, before being brought back to the surface, at which the body was broken into small parts.
I think that this gets 2 points for marking the 70th anniversary of the raid. There have been a few battleship TFAs recently, but as this is an article about a battle I don't know if its appropriate to deduct points. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. FA promoted in 2013. Meticulously sourced throughout. Excellent quality improvement effort by Nick-D. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. FA promoted in 2013. Long history of different sorts of types of peer review and quality review and multiple FACs. Finally promoted in September 2013. Deserves to finally appear at TFA! :) — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
1 points for being the anniversary of the 2013 national championship game that they participated in. Note that since the April 7, 2014 game will be played on April 8 (UTC) this will be on the main page simultaneously with the 2014 national championship game, if approved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support as nomiminator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- There have been several recent sports biographies Bill Russell (Feb 12), Hobey Baker (Jan 15), and Paul Henderson (Jan 28) as well as 1952 Winter Olympics (Feb 6), but no teams. Can I add points? Also Bart King (Oct 19), Bob Feller (Nov 3), Faith Leech (Nov 13), Heidi Game (Nov 17), History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) (Nov 25), Bryan Gunn (Dec 22), 2003 Insight Bowl (Dec 26), Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) (Dec 28).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Great article. While there is a slight diversity issue, I wouldn't be too concerned with the number of past sports articles, since none of them were about a specific team/season like this one. Thank God it's not Ohio State.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent high quality and well sourced page. Great quality improvement efforts by TonyTheTiger. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. a healthy sport :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Trimmed / reworded to get under the 1,200 limit (it's now 1,196) - as I know nothing about college basketball, TonyTheTiger, please tell me if I've changed the meaning anywhere! BencherliteTalk 11:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I know it's a team article but the image at this size isn't very arresting. How about something like File:20130323 Trey Burke dribbling.jpg, an action shot of one of the players? BencherliteTalk 12:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- 3 points so far, with 2 points for marking his 120th birthday and 1 point for being FA since October 2012. Minima© (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. High quality article on this deceased individual. Promoted to FA in 2012, subsequently promoted to Good Topic in 2012. Meticulously sourced throughout. — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)