Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank, Gog the Mild and SchroCat, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date. The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR. The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that: The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria. The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system. 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 the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

How to post a new nomination: I. Create the nomination subpage. In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page. II. Write the nomination. On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page. Your nomination should mention: when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out); when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks); and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date. III. Write the blurb. Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed. IV. Post at TFAR. After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article): ===February 29=== {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}} Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date. It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary. If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page. Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from January 1 to January 31.

The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from January 1 to January 31. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection. Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns. view • • history • watch
Date	Article	Reason	Primary author(s)	Added by (if different)
2025:
January 1	York Park	Why		Harizotoh9
January 4	Liza Soberano	Why	Pseud 14
January 6	Maria Trubnikova	Why	Ganesha811	Dank
January 8	Elvis Presley	Why	PL290, DocKino, Rikstar	Dank
January 9	Title (album)	Why	MaranoFan
January 20	Andrew Jackson	Why	Wtfiv	Sheila1988
January 22	Caitlin Clark	Why	Sportzeditz	Dank
January 27	The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia	Why		Harizotoh9
January 28	Lewis W. Green	Why	PCN02WPS
January 29	Dominik Hašek	Why		Harizotoh9
February 9	Japanese battleship Tosa	Why	The ed17
February 10	Siege of Baghdad	Why	AirshipJungleman29
March 1	Meurig ab Arthfael	Why	Dudley Miles	Sheila1988
March 10	Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number	Why	NegativeMP1
March 12	2020 Seattle Sounders FC season	Why	SounderBruce
March 18	Edward the Martyr	Why	Amitchell125	Sheila1988
March 26	Pierre Boulez	Why	Dmass	Sheila1988
April 12	Dolly de Leon	Why	Pseud 14
April 15	Lady Blue (TV series)	Why	Aoba47	Harizotoh9
April 18	Battle of Poison Spring	Why	HF
April 24	"I'm God"	Why	Skyshifter
April 25	1925 FA Cup Final	Why	Kosack	Dank
May	21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015)	Why	Peacemaker67
May 6	Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories	Why		Harizotoh9
May 10	Ben&Ben	Why	Pseud 14
May 11	Mother (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
June	The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished	Why	iridescent	Harizotoh9
June 3	David Evans (RAAF officer)	Why		Harizotoh9
June 6	American logistics in the Northern France campaign	Why	Hawkeye7	Sheila1988
June 8	Barbara Bush	Why		Harizotoh9
July 1	Maple syrup	Why	Nikkimaria	Dank
July 7	Gustav Mahler	Why	Brianboulton	Dank
July 14	William Hanna	Why	Rlevse	Dank
July 26	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Tim O'Doherty and Dank
July 29	Tiger	Why	LittleJerry
July 31	Battle of Warsaw (1705)	Why	Imonoz	Harizotoh9
August 4	Death of Ms Dhu	Why	Freikorp	AirshipJungleman29
August 23	Yugoslav torpedo boat T3	Why	Peacemaker67
August 30	Late Registration	Why		Harizotoh9
September 2	1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season	Why		Harizotoh9
September 6	Hurricane Ophelia (2005)	Why		Harizotoh9
September 20	Myst V: End of Ages	Why		Harizotoh9
September 30 or October 1	Hoover Dam	Why	NortyNort, Wehwalt	Dank
October 1	Yugoslav torpedo boat T4	Why	Peacemaker67
October 3	Spaghetti House siege	Why	SchroCat	Dank
October 10	Tragic Kingdom	Why	EA Swyer	Harizotoh9
October 16	Angela Lansbury	Why	Midnightblueowl	MisawaSakura
October 18	Royal Artillery Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 1	Matanikau Offensive	Why		Harizotoh9
November 19	Water Under the Bridge	Why	MaranoFan
November 20	Nuremberg trials	Why	buidhe	harizotoh9
November 21	Canoe River train crash	Why	Wehwalt
December 25	Marcus Trescothick	Why		Harizotoh9
2026:
January 27	History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II	Why		Harizotoh9
February 27	Raichu	Why	Kung Fu Man
May 5	Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
June 1	Rhine campaign of 1796	Why		harizotoh9
June 8	Types Riot	Why	Z1720
July 23	Veronica Clare	Why		Harizotoh9
September 20	Persona (series)	Why		Harizotoh9
November	The Story of Miss Moppet	Why		Harizotoh9
November 11	U.S. Route 101	Why	SounderBruce
October 15	Easy on Me	Why	MaranoFan
December 21	Fredonian Rebellion	Why		Harizotoh9
December 22	Title (song)	Why	MaranoFan
2027:
June	1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)	Why
August 25	Genghis Khan	Why	AirshipJungleman29
October 15	The Motherland Calls	Why	Joeyquism

Date	Article	Points	Notes	Supports†	Opposes†
Nonspecific 1	Eris (dwarf planet)			1	2
Nonspecific 2	Hanged, drawn and quartered			5	0
Nonspecific 3	Reception history of Jane Austen			1	0
Nonspecific 4	Northern Pintail			2	O
Nonspecific 5
October 10	Allegro (musical)	4	65th anniversary of opening, 1 year FA, nothing similar 6 mo.	10	0
October 14	Southern Cross Expedition	2	>2 year FA.	4	0
October 15	SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)	9	100th anniversary of commission; promoted 2011; no battleships for nearly 6 mos	4	0
October 18	Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough	3	Date relevance, 2 year FA.	6	0
October 22	School Rumble	?	?	1	2
October 22	Nixon in China (opera)			1	0
October 29	Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)	3	Date relevance, nomination by significant contributor, and no related article featured within 3 months.	4	1

^† 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

Eris (dwarf planet)

Eris is a dwarf planet. Formally designated 136199 Eris, it is the most massive known dwarf planet in the Solar System and the ninth most massive body known to orbit the Sun directly. It is estimated to be 2326 (±12) km in diameter, and 27% more massive than Pluto, or about 0.27% of the Earth's mass. Eris was discovered in January 2005 by a Palomar Observatory-based team led by Mike Brown, and its identity was verified later that year. It has one known moon, Dysnomia. With the exception of some comets, Eris and Dysnomia are currently the most distant known natural objects in the Solar System. Because Eris appeared to be larger than Pluto, its discoverers and NASA initially described it as the Solar System’s tenth planet. This, along with the prospect of other similarly sized objects being discovered in the future, motivated the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term planet for the first time. (more...)

• To space, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's using the deprecated {{ref label}} && {{note label}} system and much raw html which is a wp:deviations issue :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic, can the article be improved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic; attracts a lot of random editors. The mechanism can be updated, but it would get into the whole citation approach to update well. TMA-1 did some, but not the notes. It's not the only one: see 90377 Sedna, for example. fyi, there's a huge fuss over just what counts as a dwarf planet (other end of the spectrum than Eris). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather more mushrooms? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am all for diversity of interesting topics. It is a pity that the FA pool is unbalanced. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose six dead links according to the Toolserver checker; best to check for this before nominating so you don't waste your time writing a blurb. The article is even in Category:Articles with dead external links from March 2012 so the problem was visible on the face of the article before you nominated it. Bencherlite^Talk 09:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

Hanged, drawn and quartered

To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty in England for men convicted of high treason, although the ritual was first recorded during the reigns of King Henry III (1216–1272) and his successor, Edward I (1272–1307). Convicts were fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces). Their remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burnt at the stake. Although the Act of Parliament that defines high treason remains on the United Kingdom's statute books, during a long period of 19th-century legal reform the sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was changed to drawing, hanging until dead, and posthumous beheading and quartering, before being rendered obsolete in England in 1870. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998. (more...)

We haven't had a TFA like this in sometime. PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. That's more like it; very educational topic. nb: transclude to ANI ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. But someone will come and say that we just saw a disturbing picture of a boy hanging, sooo similar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A fine article. But I do think a little time should pass after our recent hanging/burning of persons article. Perhaps a month? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As long as the lead author doesn't mind. An outstanding article, one of the best the project has produced. I have no qualms about running it, but we should be ready for another flood of criticism on Talk:Main page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• What would people think about having it run on Halloween? --Rschen7754 17:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with that, since we ran the coprophagia movie last year this would be comparatively uncontroversial. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  The subject of this article has absolutely no connection with Halloween. It is a serious topic that should be treated with respect and not linked to an American holiday. Parrot of Doom 09:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Not on Halloween, agree with Parrot of Doom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agree. No connection with Halloween. It's a serious article covering history. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. --Rschen7754 20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose at present; too soon after Lynching of Jesse Washington on September 25, and the main author is just taking a break for personal reasons. Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 3

Reception history of Jane Austen

The reception history of Jane Austen follows a path from modest fame to wild popularity; her novels are both the subject of intense scholarly study and the centre of a diverse fan culture. Jane Austen, the author of such works as Pride and Prejudice (1813) and Emma (1815), has become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language. During her lifetime, Austen's novels brought her little personal fame; like many women writers, she chose to publish anonymously and it was only among members of the aristocracy that her authorship was an open secret. At the time they were published, Austen's works were considered fashionable by members of high society but received few positive reviews. By the mid-19th century, her novels were admired by members of the literary elite who viewed their appreciation of her works as a mark of cultivation. By the turn of the 20th century, competing groups had sprung up—some to worship her and some to defend her from the "teeming masses"—but all claiming to be the true Janeites, or those who properly appreciated Austen. It was not until the 1940s that Austen was widely accepted in academia as a "great English novelist". The second half of the 20th century saw a proliferation of Austen scholarship, which explored numerous aspects of her works: artistic, ideological, and historical. As of the early 21st century, Austen fandom supports an industry of printed sequels and prequels as well as television and film adaptations, which started with the 1940 Pride and Prejudice and evolved to include the 2004 Bollywood-style production Bride and Prejudice. (more...)

Reception of literature, blurb not final, just to introduce the topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 4

Northern Pintail

The Northern Pintail is a widely occurring duck which breeds in the northern areas of Europe, Asia and North America. It is strongly migratory and winters south of its breeding range to the equator. Unusually for a bird with such a large range, it has no geographical subspecies if the possibly con-specific Eaton's Pintail is considered to be a separate species. This is a fairly large duck, with a long pointed tail that gives rise to the species' English and scientific names. The Northern Pintail's many names describe the male's two long black tail feathers, which in flight look like a single pin or twig (thus, the nickname sprig). Hens make a coarse quack and the drakes a flute-like whistle. The Northern Pintail is a bird of open wetlands which nests on the ground, often some distance from water. It feeds by dabbling for plant food and adds small invertebrates to its diet during the nesting season. It is highly gregarious when not breeding, forming large mixed flocks with other species of duck. (more...)

A common duck that is common throughout the northern hemisphere around the world and several parts of the temparate regions. No duck article in some time. PumpkinSky talk 01:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, with a flute-like whistle, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• This ref (no 8) is a deadlink. Bencherlite^Talk 16:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

fixed with wayback machine. PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• We may not have had a duck article for a while, but the last bird article was September 23 (White Stork). Bencherlite^Talk 16:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So? PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Because, obviously, it's important to know when the last comparable article was so that people can comment on whether they're too close together. A hurricane article ran as TFA yesterday; there was one on 8th September, just under a month before, and there were complaints at Talk:Main Page. Bencherlite^Talk 08:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it: we have many hurricane FAs but few on nice weather. We have many on locations in English-speaking countries, but not on the rest of the world. We have many mushrooms, but few fruits. We have many battleships, but few peace contracts. The supply is not balanced, how can the selection be? I don't think people will complain about another bird species as much as about another storm, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The supply is not balanced, how can the selection be? So we just give up, do we? Unless I'm missing something, isn't the whole point of nomination and discussion here and selection by Raul/Dabomb (either from this page or from the unnominated pool) to create as balanced a selection of TFAs as possible from the 1,320 possibilities? Part of that, surely, is trying to avoid similar articles too close together - something that the points system explicitly recognises, but something that some nominators seem to overlook when ignoring the points system. Rejecting other suggestions as boring topics doesn't help either - if we pull out all the plums we will be left with just the duff. Bencherlite^Talk 09:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understood where I see the problem. Define balanced. One example of many possible: we can't balance battle ships with peace contracts because we have more than 70 battleship articles that haven't appeared (30 appeared), but I don't find a peace contract. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Specific date nominations

October 10

Allegro

Allegro is a musical by Richard Rodgers (music) and Oscar Hammerstein II (book and lyrics), their third collaboration for the stage, which premiered on Broadway on October 10, 1947. After the immense successes of the first two Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, Oklahoma! and Carousel, the pair sought a subject for their next play. Hammerstein had long contemplated a serious work which would deal with the problems of an ordinary man in the fast-moving modern world. He and Rodgers sought to create a work which would be as innovative as their first two stage musicals. To that end, they created a play with a large cast, including a Greek chorus. After a disastrous tryout in New Haven, Connecticut, the musical opened on Broadway to a large advance sale of tickets, and very mixed reviews. The Broadway run, directed by Agnes de Mille, ended after nine months; it had no West End production, and has rarely been revived. (more...)

One point for age, one point for anniversary of Broadway opening, two points nothing similar six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: a piece with an interesting story. I would like to see the date mentioned rather early in the blurb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Sure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: looks good to me.--Chimino (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support...Modernist (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support – because of the article's subject and despite my view of the idiotic "date relevance" of October 10. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  now I get it. October 10 is important and really ties in! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Lucky102 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  Note: user is a blocked sock. --Rschen7754 06:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

October 12

Ruth Norman

Ruth Norman (1900–1993), also known as Uriel, was an American religious leader who co-founded the Unarius Academy of Science with her husband Ernest Norman. The couple discussed numerous details about their past lives and spiritual visits to other planets, forming a mythology from these accounts. Ernest died in 1971, prompting Ruth to serve as their group's leader and primary channeler. In early 1974, she predicted that a space fleet of benevolent extraterrestrials, the Space Brothers, would land on Earth later that year. After the extraterrestrials' non-appearance, Norman stated that trauma she had suffered in a past life had caused her to make an inaccurate prediction. Undaunted, she rented a building for Unarius' meetings and sought publicity for the movement, claiming to have united the Earth with an interplanetary confederation. She revised the Space Brothers' expected landing date several times, before finally settling on 2001. Despite predicting that she would live to see the extraterrestrials land, Norman died in 1993. Unarius continued to operate and celebrate her leadership after her death. (more...)

There's date relevance to Unarius' annual holiday (the Interplanetary Conclave of Light), which is celebrated that weekend. Sadly, no good free images for the blurb. If you're in the San Diego area, please attend and take pictures--looks like a good time. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, unusual and interesting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - unique. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• ready-for=teh-main-page ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

October 14

Southern Cross Expedition

The Southern Cross Expedition, officially known as the British Antarctic Expedition 1898–1900, was the first British venture of the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, and the forerunner of the more celebrated journeys of Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. The brainchild of the Norwegian-born, half-British explorer and schoolmaster Carsten Borchgrevink, it was the first expedition to over-winter on the Antarctic mainland, the first to visit the Great Ice Barrier since James Clark Ross in 1839–43, and the first to effect a landing on the Barrier's surface. It also pioneered the use of dogs and sledges in Antarctic travel. The expedition was privately financed by the British magazine publisher Sir George Newnes. Taken south in the ship Southern Cross in August 1898, Borchgrevink's party spent the winter of 1899 at Cape Adare, the north-west extremity of the Ross Sea. (more...)

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, date relevance, under represented +1 = 4, Oct 14 is date of death of the expedition zoologist. PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, great article on heroic topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 points the date relevance is far too tenuous and this is an article within the history category at WP:FA, not one of "underrepresented" categories. Bencherlite^Talk 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support for any date there would be more appropriate dates than this e.g. 19 December when the ship finally sails from Australia for the Antarctic, but (subject to any preference from the primary author, who I've just notified as per the instructions above) this could just run on any date the TFA scheduler wants. Bencherlite^Talk 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support A great expedition and a great page!--Lucky102 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

October 15

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great, Ger. orth. Friedrich der Große) was the second vessel of the Kaiser class of battleships of the German Imperial Navy. She was commissioned into the fleet on 15 October 1912. Assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I, she served as fleet flagship from her commissioning until 1917. The ship participated in all the major fleet operations of World War I, including the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916, where she emerged from the battle completely unscathed. After Germany's defeat and the signing of the armistice in November 1918, Friedrich der Grosse and most of the capital ships of the High Seas Fleet were interned by the British Royal Navy in Scapa Flow. On 21 June 1919, days before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter ordered the fleet to be scuttled to ensure that the British could not seize the ships. Friedrich der Grosse was raised in 1936 and broken up for scrap metal. (more...)

100th anniversary of commission to the fleet; promoted to FA over a year ago; no battleships for nearly six months. That's about nine points. -- Dianna (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make-it-so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Battlecruiser operational - Er, support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support -although I'll note for the record that the last warship TFA was USS New Ironsides a month ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Meh; I suppose I should have remembered ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we think about the fact that the ship was likely named "Friedrich der Große", which is not prominantly mentioned in the article, I just see a little footnote behind an English name, saying "or" as if both could be used the same. "Gross" would be pronounced differently in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  As, for example, de:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It was there, once upon a time ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's an FA on vi:wp, too:

  • vi:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911)

  and they moved it to the proper spelling:

  • diff of vi:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911)

  I'm quite sure that “ß” is not actually part of the Vietnamese language, but they named their article properly… This really is an issue specific to English language cultures.

  Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the ship was named Friedrich der Große, but the policy on the English Wikipedia is to follow established English usage. In the vast majority of English-language sources, the name is rendered without the eszett, which is why the article is titled as it is. As for the note, we determined over the course of several ACRs/FACs that it was the best way to handle the alternative spelling issue without unduly cluttering the lead section.

  I was not part of those discussions, but as a German native speaker can tell you that it looks wrong. If the name is given in German, I think it should be given in correct German, and a name is a name. I don't go and call you Parsecboi because I lack a letter, - which would be the only reason to say "Grosse" instead of "Große". It sounds like "grossly insulting", pun intended. I was told that polite is irrelevant, but politely disagree and think it would be polite to honour the ship by calling it its name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012‎ (UTC)

  That's all well and good, but WP:UE is policy; we need a pretty good reason to ignore a long-standing policy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  To my understanding this policy would apply if the article would call the ship a common English name, such as "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great" (example: "Bayreuth Festival" instead of "Bayreuther Festspiele"). But it doesn't, it uses German, at least it seems to try to do so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Read the first line of the section: the choice is between local spellings and Anglicized variants - for instance, one of the examples is Besançon (the Anglicized version would omit the cedilla). But since the city is commonly referred to it in English with the cedilla, it is appropriate to keep it. For German words in English usage, umlauts are commonly retained (so Karl Dönitz, not Karl Doenitz or Donitz) but the eszett is usually converted into the double "s". In some specialist sources, the original spelling is used, but in most general sources, this ship is referred to as Friedrich der Grosse in English. Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I am unable to understand why the umlaut would be kept, which doesn't sound different, but not the "ß", which sounds completely different, long vowel vs. short vowel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know why English uses what it does, but the umlaut does sound different than simply dropping it (Donitz would not sound the same as Dönitz). It's presumably because the umlaut is somehow easier to reproduce than the eszett. All I can tell you is what is common English usage in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  You said Doenitz above, that would sound the same as Dönitz, whereas "Grosse" sound grossly wrong. The reason that "ß" was not available on keyboards (the reason why those sources simplified to ss) is no longer valid, so why not use it. We night eventually correct a "long-standing" error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  ps: the article on the person after which the ship ad others are name knows only "Große".

  To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, apart from following what policy prescribes. If you or others want to attempt to change it, that's fine, but to simply ignore it in this case, we need a better reason than saying we don't like it or it's wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  I say then that it's wrong. My proposal for the blurb would be:

SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) was the second vessel of the Kaiser class of battleships of the German Imperial Navy. Named after Frederick the Great, she is also known as "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great". She was commissioned into the fleet on 15 October 1912. Assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I, she served as fleet flagship from her commissioning until 1917. The ship participated in all the major fleet operations of World War I, including the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916, where she emerged from the battle completely unscathed. After Germany's defeat and the signing of the armistice in November 1918, Friedrich der Große and most of the capital ships of the High Seas Fleet were interned by the British Royal Navy in Scapa Flow. On 21 June 1919, days before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter ordered the fleet to be scuttled to ensure that the British could not seize the ships. Friedrich der Große was raised in 1936 and broken up for scrap metal.

The articles lead might mention "Older sources give the name as Friedrich der Grosse". Other than that, I see no reason to promote wrong German (it's "groß" even after our last orthography reform) and disrespect to the common name of a German king ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The ship has never been known as Frederick the Great; that's just a translation of the name... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprised, where does "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great" come from, then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple translation of the name. Seiner Majestät Schiff Friedrich der Große = His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great. (note that the ruler's name has been anglicized, but the ship name has not, aside from replacing the eszett) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now I got "SMS", finally, that is the abbreviation of the German, interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, WP:AT is policy, and it stipulates that in cases like this, the most common English representation of the name should be used. It may be right, and it may very well be wrong. But our best work must adhere to established policies. It doesn't matter what you or I think about said policies, we just have to do it. Simply saying "it's wrong" is not enough of a reason to ignore it. And as for the "older sources" bit, books from 2011, 2010, and 2004 use "Grosse" to refer to the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to repeat myself, but here you go again: if a policy leads to a result like this, the policy needs to be questioned, it's not holy scriptures. "Grosse" is NOT the name of the ship, it is incorrect German, and it is disrespectful to the namesake of the ship. The article has to show this: naming "Friedrich der Große" boldly as the original name and a redirect, as a minimum. My personal consequence would be to move it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been repeating myself because you don't seem to get it (or just don't want to). We can't just ignore policy because we don't like it. WP:IAR is not a magic bullet that we can use whenever we like. There should be a compelling reason to overturn a policy, not just one person's opinion. If you want to question the policy, do so at WT:AT, not on an individual article. Let me repeat myself again: this is not de.wiki, this is en.wiki. In English, the name of this ship is generally represented as the article is currently titled. Long-standing policy states that we should follow common English usage in determining article titles. So you think that's wrong. Good for you. So do many other editors who would prefer Novak Đoković over Novak Djokovic, but English usage is English usage, and that's the policy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I have a language problem. I did not request IAR. I asked that the article shows in bold that the name of the ship is "Friedrich der Große". To my knowledge it is standard to show the original name ALSO, if an English version is used, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we have WP:IAR, for that; and we have Staff 2012 (& Staff 2010 edition, which is used as a source in the article) using the “ß”. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Große, support Grosse—unfortunately, the TFA blurb instructions state that we don't run alternate names, and since the "Grosse" spelling predominates in English literature on this topic, that's the main name we use. We aren't beholden to German spelling practices. Imzadi 1979 → 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say in the blurb, I said in the article. The article at present doesn't show the original name, nor does it explain why that is not used. (I would appreciate an explanation of SMS also, comparable to BWV.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

SMS is linked in the {efn}, and directly in some of the Austro-Hungarian BBs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Teh “instructions” are “suggestions” ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

New day, new thoughts (I hope). The ship is to be celebrated on her 100th birthday, we want to present her great, right? Please see me as an example of the average reader who is not familiar with an abbreviation such as SMS nor with the custom to replace the letter "ß" by "ss" if you don't have it. Such a reader is not served yet, a footnote is not enough. In all of Bach's cantatas, BWV is linked right after the translation, example.

I am not against replacing foreign diacritics. I was the one to mention "Elena Garanca" (seen in newspapers) to Elīna Garanča. (I was reverted.)

If enough sources would tell you "sorry, we don't have letter b, we substitute by ss", would you follow them? (Try it on the current US president. No politics intended, it's simply the best example coming to my mind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I second Gerda's request for retaining the eszett. In various reviews I used her line of reasoning but I was overruled every time. The fact that the phonetics for "ss" and "ß" are different in German is irrelevant. You will also find a Grossadmiral and not a Großadmiral in the article, something which also curls my toenails. I came to peace with myself and pretend to be from Switzerland whenever I read this. Sorry Parsecboy but here Wiki policy fails to rectify the obviously wrong. My humble opinion! All said it is still a very good article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I feel that the lead image is a much cleaner photo than the one used in the blurb (and thus a better choice). Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I found that at 180px the lead image doesn't work as well. Here they are side by side. The various darker shades on the image I chose give it some nice contrast. In the lead image, the water is choppy, which makes the ship kinda disappear at this resolution.-- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - I hadn't looked at the lead image at that resolution. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support TFA, either way, but also support Friedrich der Große ß is no different from an umlaut or ç. ŀ say either use it the way it's done in German if we use the German language title, or bag it all and retitle it "Frederick the Great." Just having a double s in the German language title is sort of a half-assed application of USEENGLISH. Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as is. This page isn't for move requests. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It isn't a move request. My objection is due to the fact that we don't use alternate names/spellings in our blurbs on the Main Page, which means we default to the most common name as used in English literature on the subject, which in this case is with the double S, not the eszett. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

October 18

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (1660–1744) was one of the most influential women in British history as a result of her close friendship with Queen Anne of Great Britain. By the time Anne became queen in 1702, Sarah had become a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy, the last in the long line of Stuart favourites. A strong-willed woman who liked to get her own way, Sarah tried the Queen's patience whenever she disagreed with her on political, court or church appointments. Sarah enjoyed an unusually close relationship with her husband, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, whom she married in 1677. When Anne came to the throne, the Duke of Marlborough, together with Sidney Godolphin, rose to head the government, partly as a result of his wife's friendship with the queen. Sarah campaigned on behalf of the British Whig Party, while also devoting time to building projects such as the construction of Blenheim Palace. The money she inherited from the Marlborough trust made her one of the richest women in Europe. (more...)

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, Date relevant to article topic +1, total = 3.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This blurb needs work. Should be one paragraph, and the date is generally year only. Looks a little short, but that could just be me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I have re-written the blurb. See what you think -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  From a technical aspect it's better, but I don't think it needs the dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, interesting (and another woman), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support- I really like this page; might need a bit of tidying. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 points - death dates, by longstanding convention on this page, do not get a date relevance point unless the death itself was notable (e.g. the death of John Lennon gave his article a date relevance point). Bencherlite^Talk 08:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is changing. The point math seems only relevant if there is "competition" about a specific day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so why do we need points at all any more? Nominate an article for a slot, explain why it deserves it and let supports/opposes/"prefer the competing article" decide, rather than artificial discussions about whether a previous recent TFA is sufficiently similar to a nominated one to impose a points penalty. It would make this page far less complicated. In the meantime, let's get the points right, rather than claiming date relevance points on spurious grounds or incorrectly claiming "underrepresented" or "widely covered" points. Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you place that valid thought - which I would support - on the talk rather than here where it will disappear without even an archive when the Lady will be scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think any Date relevance should be used.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: if Lady Grange (nominated above) runs soon, this will suffer a three point penalty - or, in non-point terms, we ought to spread our 18th-century British women out a bit, not run two in very close proximity. Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The other lady will wait until May, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

October 22

School Rumble

School Rumble is a Japanese Shōnen manga series written and illustrated by Jin Kobayashi. It was first serialized in Weekly Shōnen Magazine from October 22, 2002 to July 23, 2008, and later published in 22 tankōbon volumes by Kodansha. Magazine Special published a parallel world story, School Rumble Z, monthly from August 20, 2008 to May 20, 2009. School Rumble focuses on a love triangle involving the series' two protagonists, Kenji Harima and Tenma Tsukamoto, and one of their classmates, Oji Karasuma. The series often discards realism in favor of comedic effect. Two anime series were made: the first running from October 2004 to April 2005 and the second running from April to September 2006. There have also been two OAV adaptations, as well as three video games made for the series. (more...)

FA since 2010; 10th anniversary of the first release of the manga. Haven't had an anime FA on the main page in a while. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the points. 8 points in all (6 then +2 because no similar article in more than 6 months). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• mild oppose; category:Articles with invalid ISBNs, category:All articles with dead external links. trivial topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Mild oppose - Per Rabbit (except trivial topic, that's not relevant IMHO). Also, several one sentence paragraphs — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll inform the Anime and manga WikiProject to fix such problems. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment "Trivial topic" is not a valid complaint. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Not a “complaint”, an “observation”. And a reason to oppose. ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm of the belief that the anime clip is an NFCC violation, so I won't support this unless the clip is removed or becomes critically discussed. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • NFC movie clips are acceptable as long as NFCC criteria is still passed. Given 1) this article passed FAC in 2010 (post-Foundation resolution on non-free media) 2) the clip's page has the proper elements for a rationale per NFCC (including size and resolution for movies), and 3) the clip is specifically discussed in the context of the article, thus boosting the important NFCC#8 "Significance" factor, the clip appears to have support for inclusion. I did review the FAC noms for this and see they did at one point switch from a screenshot to the full clip as the screenshot didn't give justice to the scene (and being aware of the anime, I'd tend to agree here). It's not the most cleanest use of a NFC movie clip (eg not as tight a reason to use as say on Star Trek: First Contact), but its far from failing NFC outright. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

October 22a

Nixon in China (opera)

The opera Nixon in China by John Adams (pictured), with a libretto by Alice Goodman, premiered at the Houston Grand Opera on October 22, 1987, in a production by Peter Sellars with choreography by Mark Morris. Adams' first opera, it was inspired by the 1972 visit to China by US President Richard Nixon. To create the sounds he sought, Adams augmented the orchestra with a large saxophone section, additional percussion, and electronic synthesizer. Although sometimes described as "minimalist", the score displays a variety of musical styles, embracing minimalism after the manner of Philip Glass alongside passages echoing 19th century composers, mixing Stravinskian 20th century neoclassicism, jazz references, and big band sounds reminiscent of Nixon's youth in the 1930s. The opera received mixed reviews. It has been presented on many occasions, in Europe as well as in North America, and has been recorded twice. In 2011, the opera was staged at the Metropolitan Opera, based on the original sets. Recent critical opinion has tended to recognize the work as a significant and lasting contribution to American opera. (more...)

• Anniversary of an important work of contemporary music, seems relevant even if a similar thing was featured the day before, blurb needs concentration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 29

Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)

"Give Peace a Chance" is the seventh episode of the sixth season of the American television medical drama Grey's Anatomy, and the show's 109th episode overall. Written by Peter Nowalk and directed by Chandra Wilson, the episode was originally broadcast on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) in the United States on October 29, 2009. Grey's Anatomy centers around a group of young doctors in training. In this episode, Dr. Derek Shepherd (Patrick Dempsey, pictured) performs an operation on a hospital technician's "inoperable" tumor, despite the objections of the chief of surgery, Dr. Richard Webber (James Pickens, Jr.). The episode was designed to revolve around Dempsey's character. Mark Saul, Jesse Williams, and Nora Zehetner returned as guest stars, while Faran Tahir made his first and only appearance. Viewed by 13.74 million people, "Give Peace a Chance" won Wilson an NAACP Image Award for directing, and was generally well received among critics. (more...)

Three points: One point for date relevance (three year anniversary of premiere), one point for being a significant contributor/never having an article as TFA, and one point for no television/film article featured within 3 months of the requested date. Recently promoted FA. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support very interesting topic. TBrandley 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose very boring topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Half the topics on here are more boring. I've never had one of my article's on the main page, and this article has 3 points. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Wake up; it's a television show. It probably is less boring than School Rumble, but everything else on this page has them both beat by 1.6km ;) Interesting is, of course, subjective, but you would benefit from taking an interest in more interesting topics. nb: teh points are deprecated; artefacts of a prior paradigm. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In theory any encyclopedic topic can be a featured article, and any featured article can be TFA. There's no blanket ban on TV shows. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Unfortunately not; missed E&C 1, E&C 2, I take it? Anyhoo, doesn't make them “encyclopedic”. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  As you very well know, "encyclopedic" on Wikipedia is much more inclusive than in Britannica. I doubt Britannica would have an article on Chrisye, for example. Last I checked, they don't even have one on Jaws. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  DYK… taht teh unworded {{Unencyclopedic}}? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Are you saying we need such a template? Encyclopedic, to me, means that it presents a notable subject in a neutral tone and gives a general idea (covering the major points) of a topic, accessible to most readers. I'd much rather see this on the main page than deconstruction in its current state. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  click teh redlink; we had it, for years. But teh “Evil Inclusionists”^™ deleted it. First tehy re-wrote, it, and re-wrote it, and renamed it, and re-wrote it, and after five TfDs and years of teh BATTLE tehy made it an unword. But I {{rescue}}d it: User:Jack Merridew/Unencyclopaedic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  I guarantee the majority of Wikipedia readers would rather read about an episode of a hit medical drama, than about some priest from 1452. I have no interest in working on other topics, and bringing television articles up to featured status is what I like to do on Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Let's just insult the featured article writers of topics we don't like, because, you know, Wikipedia has enough article writers anyway. Or not. Let's stop trolling, Jack. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  try setting a better example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Oh yes, because I troll all the time. You make me giggle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  bzzt; you did it, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support recent FA, new TFA contributor, we need a balance of material on the main page including TV programmes. Bencherlite^Talk 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)