Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Shortcut:
The requests page is currently accepting nominations from December 4 to January 3.

Articles do not have to have a connection to a particular date to appear as the TFA.
Articles can also be nominated (in the "non-specific dates" section) for scheduling on any free date.

Potential requests for dates before December 3, 2015, can be entered below.

viewedithistorywatch

Date Article Reason Contact
Dec 16 Oliver Bosbyshell Why Wehwalt
Dec 19 December 1964 South Vietnamese coup Why Harizotoh9
Dec 21 James Whiteside McCay Why EamonnPKeane
Jan 1 1924 Rose Bowl Why Awardgive
Jan 11 John A. Macdonald Why Wehwalt
Jan 19 Stan Musial Why Monowi
Jan 20 Eraserhead Why Grapple X
Jan 22 Menominee Tribe v. United States Why GregJackP
Feb 6 Female genital mutilation Why SlimVirgin
Feb 12 Streatham portrait Why Crisco 1492
Feb 20 Fluorine Why TCO, R8R Gtrs, Rjwilmsi
Feb 23 Paul Tibbets Why Hawkeye7
Feb 28 Amir Hamzah Why Crisco 1492
Mar 3 Three-cent nickel Why Wehwalt
Mar 10 Air raids on Japan Why Nick-D
Mar 11 Vannevar Bush Why Hawkeye7
Mar 21 Pixies Why CloudNine
Mar 29 John Tyler Why Designate, Wehwalt
Apr 1 Invisible rail Why Gerda Arendt
Apr 6 Sonic X Why Tezero
Apr 9 Summer of '42 Why Mdumas43073, Mistergrind, Ted Wilkes
Apr 11 The Boat Race 2012 Why The Rambling Man
Apr 14 William H. Seward Why Wehwalt
Apr 15 Andrew Johnson Why Wehwalt
Apr 16 Vernon Sturdee Why Hawkeye7
Apr 19 Carousel (musical) Why Wehwalt, Ssilvers
May 2 California Chrome Why Montanabw
May 7 Mike Capel Why Seattle
May 7 The Sinking of the Lusitania Why Curly Turkey
May 11 Valley Parade Why Brad78
May 26 Eardwulf of Northumbria Why Mike Christie
Jun 6 Tommy Amaker Why TonyTheTiger
Jun 26 Stanley Savige Why Hawkeye7
Jul 8 Percy Grainger Why Gerda Arendt
Jul 27 New York Dolls (album) Why Dan 56
Aug 3 George S. Patton slapping incidents Why Ed!
Aug 6 509th Composite Group Why Hawkeye7
Aug 8 SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm Why Parsecboy
Aug 13 Tropical Depression Ten (2005) Why Juliancolton
Aug 15 Departures (film) Why Crisco 1492
Aug 15 Thomas Crisp Why Jackyd101
Aug 30 Judah P. Benjamin Why Wehwalt
Sep 1 Hurricane Elena Why Juliancolton
Sep 1 Acacia pycnantha Why Casliber
Sep 11 Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy Why Tezero
Sep 26 Three-dollar piece Why Wehwalt
Sep 27 Stockton and Darlington Railway Why Edgepedia
Oct 10 Tragic Kingdom Why Escape Artist Swyer, Tezero
Oct 30 Tourette syndrome Why SandyGeorgia
Oct 31 The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) Why Dmoon1
Nov 11 1975 Australian constitutional crisis Why Wehwalt
Nov 11 Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence Why Cliftonian


For the Signpost article, "Choosing Today's Featured Article", see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches.
For the editnotice for TFAs, see Template:TFA-editnotice.
For the blurbs that can be used in the event of a TFA emergency, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency.

Sonic: After the Sequel[edit]

I don't mean to be pushy or impatient, but is there a reason this hasn't been scheduled (or otherwise thrown out) yet? Two nonspecific nominations that were proposed after it already have. Tezero (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason is I don't schedule video games close together. It'll get there. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'd forgotten about Drakengard. Thanks! Tezero (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam[edit]

Some of you may have seen in your newspapers etc (or from the "Recent deaths" section of "In the news" on our Main Page) that Gough Whitlam, a former prime minister of Australia, has died at the age of 98. He would have turned 100 in July 2016. He was dismissed from office on 11 November 1975, in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. As it happens, both Whitlam and the 1975 crisis article are Featured Articles. Whitlam was TFA in March 2004, about a month after the TFA scheme started; the article was demoted in 2006 but brought back to FA status in 2010. Wehwalt is the principal author of both FAs, and he would like to mark Whitlam's demise in some way at TFA if possible. The dates of the private funeral and public memorial service (according to the BBC) are not yet known. Our options would appear to be:

  1. Run Gough Whitlam on the day of funeral or memorial service
  2. Run 1975 Australian constitutional crisis on the day of the funeral or memorial service
  3. Run one of these on 11 November, the anniversary of the crisis
  4. Run one of these at some other time.

My initial thoughts, FWIW: I'm reluctant to run either on 11th November as we already have a strongly supported nomination (for Goodbyeee) that day; the date of the public memorial service might be more appropriate than the date of the private funeral, not least because we probably don't need to link to Whitlam in the TFA and Recent Deaths sections at the same time ; the 1975 article hasn't been TFA but might this be unduly negative to run in memoriam?; the Whitlam article has been TFA before, and we don't repeat TFAs (except when we do) though if we're going to re-run a TFA, the death of a 98-year-old leading politician whose article was at TFA over 10 years ago is perhaps not going to open the floodgates; if we are going to re-run a TFA, then a relevant date is perhaps better than a random date.

But what do other people think? I'm interested in hearing your views. BencherliteTalk 08:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to (re-)run the person on the day of the public memorial service if possible, and the crisis 11 November 2015, 40 years anniversary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks for asking, Bench. Re. 11 November, I supported Goodbyeee for TFA on that date and see no reason to change it. Re. another go at TFA, I don't support that in general and don't think we need make an exception here. We should be able to run the dismissal article in OTD on 11 November and that'll link to the Whitlam article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was about to concur with Gerda and Crisco, but Ian's addition gives me pause. I take the point but on balance I'd still go for running the Whitlam article as TFA on the day of the public service, unless the date chosen for it clashes with a date already reserved here for an article with a copper-bottomed claim to the slot. Tim riley talk 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat biased in that I'm a fan of Gough Whitlam, but I think that as a general principle FAs that are demoted after being TFA and are subsequently re-promoted should get a second bite at the cherry after a lengthy period between appearances. 10 years is probably too long to be a rule (5 years minimum in these unusual cases, perhaps?), but I think that it's appropriate. My strong preference is for it to be run on the day of Whitlam's memorial service unless, as Tim notes, there's an article with an even stronger claim scheduled to run that day. I don't agree with bumping Goodbyeee for the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article - Goodbyeee has a stronger claim to this given the link with the centennial of World War I, and it's not the best option to memorialise Whitlam in the context of how his prime ministership ended. It would also be better to save this article for the 40th anniversary of the dismissal next year. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) Was just going to add that as far as running the dismissal article as TFA, anytime the community considers appropriate is fine by me (apart from 11 November this year, preferably!) since it hasn't run before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (conflicted) I don't think you should interfere with the 11 November date; marking the end of the First World War with the poignant "Goodbyeee...." article is a master stroke. The object of running a Whitlam TFA now would be to honour Whitlam, and you don't do that by parading the article that records his dismissal, either on the anniversary of his humiliation or otherwise. I don't object in principle to treating re-promoted articles as new for TFA purposes – in this case it is very different from the version that ran in 2004, a date beyond the memory of all but the most venerable of Wikipedians. So I'd support running the Whitlam biography on the memorial service date. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Brian as well Secret account 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with Nick (always a dread phrase...) and Brian - re-running seems fine to me when it's been over ten years and re-promoted since. A general ten-year-and-good-reason rule might be worth considering, since cases like this are going to start cropping up more often, and we've just passed the point when there are articles which had been on TFA ten years before... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A really tough choice. I would have jumped at putting 1975 Australian constitutional crisis on November 11 but "Goodbyeee...." has a very strong claim. I agree we should do something on the memorial day. Think on the balance of things I'd go with re-running Gough article on the day and keep 1975 Australian constitutional crisis for next year. The date was such a key thing that we really need it on that day. 2004 is ancient history and the article I suspect looks very different to how it did then. Funnily enough, I was musing on requesting vampire be re-run sometime, which is also over ten years aged since it graced the main page (and very different). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you're worried about setting a precedent, I think most of us would agree that an article demoted from FA and re-promoted by the work of a different editor is an excellent place to draw the line. (I suppose this means that I support the re-running of Whitlam) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe I've said that several times before. They're not the same article, more often than not, even if they're on the same subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A little off-topic, but I think it's worth mentioning nevertheless: if we keep the 1975 crisis article for the anniversary next year, as Casliber suggests above, we face a hard choice between it and Rhodesia's UDI (1965) for 11 November 2015. Both articles would have strong claims. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Aah well, year after then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
With differences in time zones, run one on the 11th and the other on the 10th or 12th--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is it okay to rerun this and not Grace Sherwood? It never had a full run, was seriously reworked and had massive rerun support, but was trumped by one person, Bencher. 199.112.128.15 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I understood that rerunning Grace Sherwood would set a precedent that we don't want, so this potential rerun doesn't make much sense to me. However, to clarify; I have no problem with rerunning articles for good reason, time lapse , anniversaries, and articles that don't have a full run , so I would support rerunning this article. What we have to consider is consistency. ( I worked on the Grace Sherwood article).(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hello Littleolive oil and whoever the person behind the IP address is. Some points in reply. Firstly, I haven't said that Whitlam will be re-run, and not everyone above agrees that it should. Secondly, some of those supporting re-running Whitlam are doing so on the basis of principles which, even if adopted generally, would not apply (and would not have applied) to Sherwood - a 5 or 10-year re-run eligibility (Sherwood ran in October 2010, 3 years before it was re-nominated) or reworked by new editors (the same editor was a, or the, nominator at the two Sherwood FACs). Thirdly, the motivation for re-running Whitlam would be to mark his memorial service, an event external to Wikipedia. Similarly the only two other articles to appear on two separate occasions did so for reasons external to Wikipedia: Transit of Venus re-ran to mark the last Transit of Venus this century; Obama re-ran on the day of the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In contrast, the motive for re-running Sherwood was not external to Wikipedia. Fourthly, I suppose, Whitlam is a much more important historical figure than Sherwood (and I'm in fact surprised that Whitlam is not a "vital article"). I certainly wouldn't look upon Whitlam re-running (if it does) as a green light to re-run TFAs about any recently deceased person, or as a loosening of practice for TFAs generally. If it's adherence to precedent that's wanted, then based on previous decisions, Whitlam is easier to justify re-running than Sherwood is or was.

Since the Sherwood discussion last year, no-one has tried to initiate a community debate to ascertain wider views on whether the "no repeats" rule should be relaxed more than it has been in the past. There have been a couple of suggestions to re-run articles (e.g. for the anniversary of the start of the First World War) which I have refused. (In fact, I have yet to re-run a TFA in my nearly two years in post.) Whitlam is the first one I have invited wider comments upon because the possibility of marking his death (given his position in Australian history) in circumstances when his previous TFA appearance was (in Wikipedia terms) in the Jurassic era is the closest thing I have seen so far to a justifiable and rare exception to the "no repeats" rule, and I wanted some input from others on what they thought.

We still have over 3.5 years of supply of TFAs waiting a first chance at running, and in the last year there have been various comments / complaints about the length of time it already takes some FAs to run (even from authors of newly promoted FAs) or expressions of stunned surprise that FAs from 2007 and before have still to run as TFA. Each time an article re-runs, of course, it takes a slot for an article that has yet to run and increases the average waiting time. And every time an article re-runs, it will lead to calls for more articles to be re-run and the exceptional nature of re-runs starts to go, and more articles have to wait for longer and longer for a first appearance.

In short - if Whitlam re-runs, it doesn't mean that Sherwood should (or should have) re-run; Whitlam isn't barred from re-running just because Sherwood didn't re-run. Each case has to be considered on its merits. BencherliteTalk 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite- it is very kind of you to prove you are merely dictator Raul reincarnated--make "rules" but make whatever exception you desire to justify your own views; all the while totally ignoring massive community consensus.198.252.245.195 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
198.252.245.195, Whitlam running does mean that Sherwood can possibly re-run, in that it sets a precedent that re-running may be allowed based on a significant event like an influential public figure's death. It just doesn't mean Sherwood will re-run. Each case is considered individually. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"considered individually" just proves my point, Bencher is free to do whatever he wants and totally ignore the consensus of the community, which is what he's done many times, which is exactly what Raul did. And people wonder why this place is so dysfunctional and why wiki editorship nosedives perpetually. 216.54.54.13 (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm clearly going to make no-one happy with everything I do at TFA, as the IP's comments above make clear (strange that the user seems unwilling to log in to his account to criticise me, but there we go). However, we have here a situation where we have a very high-profile figure (namely a former head of government) dying at the age of 98 and the chance to use his article on the day of his memorial service in circumstances when there is no other suitable article to use (the 1975 crisis article would be unduly negative to run on that day) and when the article was TFA over 10 years ago, in the earliest days of TFA itself. Since then, it has been brought back up to modern FA standards by a different main author and is still in excellent condition. In reality, no-one would have complained if he had lived to be 100 and we had re-run it then to mark his 100th birthday. (In fact, I was rather hoping that he would make it to 100!) Instead of that, this is a suitable occasion on which to invoke the IAR exception to "only one appearance at TFA" rule and to re-run Whitlam's article. Had circumstances been different - including but not limited to points such as the article being TFA much more recently, or the person involved having a much lower public role, or there being no particular special event in play – the answer may well have been different. As will have become obvious from these remarks and my previous comments in this discussion, I do not intend this to be the opening of the floodgates for re-running TFAs, and in fact I detect no general appetite above for the rule against re-running TFAs to be abolished completely. If anyone wants to start a general discussion about formulating some principles for re-running TFAs, whether based purely on "time since TFA" or taking into account factors such as repromotion (or lack of it), special occasions, etc, please do. BencherliteTalk 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

11 November 2015 and WP:TFARP[edit]

The luxury of choice, eh? Two major international stories, both with round-number anniversaries, going head-to-head next year. Wehwalt might not know of this, Cliftonian might – there's a marvellous long-running British radio comedy called I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. One of the regularly played rounds involves the two teams taking it in turns to tell a story to get towards the punchline they have been given. Every time the hooter sounds, the other team takes over and changes direction towards their punchline, and so on. (It's funnier than it sounds from that description, honestly!) Another round involves the players saying one word at a time to tell a story, the aim being never to complete a sentence. Perhaps we should combine the two and on 11th November 2015 have one combined blurb that tells the story of the Australian constitutional crisis and also the story of UDI - but every time there's a full stop, the blurb changes topic. Anyway, all that is over a year away and goodness knows what TFA will look like then, but perhaps some creative thinking or technical wizardry will help find a solution other than the usual TFA fudge of "one on the day, the other a day early or a day late"... Who knows? BencherliteTalk 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll step aside if wanted. Or suggest running one on the 10th and the other on the 11th as time zones dictate. I'm more pleased that my article "Sunrise at Pocatello: Dr. Minnie Howard, Ezra Meeker, and the Birth of the Oregon Trail Half Dollar" was published today in the November issue of The Numismatist as the cover story (copies on email request). Say what Jimbo will about the joys of amateurism (or am I getting him mixed up with Avery Brundage?), it's nice to get paid (not much, but it's the principle of the thing). Once I integrate the info in the article, I'll make Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar available for TFA on some random date (possibly Meeker's birthday at the end of December).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Congrats to the article, Wehwalt! If the Crisis runs 10 Nov, it's for a long time 11 in Australia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see where this is going. Holland Park? —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you cross the diagonal? BencherliteTalk 08:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Not sure this is allowed but taking into account air humidity Neasden. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I think I'll try (because it's wild) King's Cross, although I might have left myself open there... BencherliteTalk 11:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mornington Crescent (applause). Anyway on a serious note I did think perhaps we could have both articles together, one blurb then the other, but my concern is that this could lead people to think the two incidents were related. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that they should run together, and running an article focused on the man who killed off the White Australia policy alongside one on the birth of Rhodesia would be an odd look which might lead to offence in Australia. Wehwalt's suggestion seems sensible to me; the dismissal article could run on 10 November, which will give it good page-time in Australia on the 11th, and the Rhodesia article could run on the 11th. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
A very good point regarding the political side of the thing. I hadn't made the connection and I think Nick is right. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus or majority vote?[edit]

I'm not familiar with how Today's Featured Article is decided. Is Consensus required or is it simply a matter of majority rule? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the decision is always Bencherlite's, as the curator, but as with everything else on Wikipedia, he's assessing consensus, not counting votes, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
BULLSHIT. Bencherlite has proven multiple times he is totally willing to totally IGNORE consensus and do whatever he likes, just like Raul did. He's merely Dictator Raul II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.195.29 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, and maybe Bencherlite can clarify, but my understanding is that Bencherlite is not bound by the consensus at TFA/R and is in fact the sole arbiter / final decision of what goes to TFA. In my experience, he's always been fair and I've never seen him make a decision that is contrary to the local consensus about a given article. Presumably he is ultimately bound by consensus in that he governs by our consent and if he were consistently acting improperly he could likely be replaced if there were a consensus, though I imagine that given the hard work one has to put in to actually coordinate TFA and the frankly excellent job he's been doing, I imagine he'll retire from the position long before any consensus arises for his replacement. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I was going to ignore the not-very-anonymous IP editor who once again has forgotten to log into his account before insulting me (how brave of you to keep these edits out of your account's contribution history!), but 0x0077BE deserves a reply. Looking at WP:TFAREC, which currently covers 1st May to 21st November 2014, there are 205 TFAs. Of these, 94 (about 46%) came through nominations at WP:TFAR (95, if you include Gough Whitlam, discussed above) and the remaining 111 (54%, or 110 without Whitlam) were ones that I chose myself without any nomination. This is line with the long-term trend over the last two years of about 45% of TFAs coming through TFAR and 55% being my choice. Now for the same period (1st May to 21st November 2014), Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article shows seven nominations were unsuccessful. One of these was not even a featured article and another was nominated months too early for the date requested. Of the other five, the reasons for not running include unresolved article quality concerns brought up by commentators, lack of support for running in cases of excessive proximity to similar articles, or a principal author preferring to wait for a later date - none of them controversial conclusions, I think. So we have a TFAR success rate of 94/(5+94), i.e. 95%, which is not bad going IMHO - if we had more TFAR nominations, so that I had to select fewer articles off my own bat, then the success rate would be even higher, because I don't arbitrarily reject nominations. Of course, the IP is complaining about my refusal to schedule Grace Sherwood for an exceptional second appearance at TFA over a year ago, but that's another story and one that it is unnecessary to rehash here. Thank you, 0x0077BE, for your kind words. BencherliteTalk 13:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
HA "he's always been fair and I've never seen him make a decision that is contrary to the local consensus about a given article" Hardly. To use the example Bencher brought up, he COMPLETELY IGNORED consensus on Sherwood, and no he has not always been fair. But I do agree with both of you that wiki is a hopeless endeavor and is a total den of dysfunction in all regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.54.13 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsuccessful nominations[edit]

Readers may be interested in Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article, which is complete from creation of the subpage system (April 2014) onwards. I'm slowly going through the TFAR edit history and creating subpages for nominations (successful and unsuccessful) since my time in office started at the end of November 2012, and will add any unsuccessful nominations to this page as I find them. BencherliteTalk 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry to see this. But I understand too. Thanks so much, Bencherlite, for what you've done here and for putting in such a tremendous amount of time! Victoria (tk) 00:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)