Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Raul654 (talk | contribs)
70,896 edits
Line 390: Line 390:
**** What precedent exists already for running the same article a second time? [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
**** What precedent exists already for running the same article a second time? [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
*****NVM, I read a previous comment wrong. Refactored
*****NVM, I read a previous comment wrong. Refactored

Ok, so as I read this, ITN isn't going to do anything with the election until after midnight UTC. If that's the case, my largest worry is alleviated. My second worry is setting precedents with regard to featuring (A) two articles at once, or (B) featuring articles on the main page a second time, remain. However, I think this can be dealt with by me saying, here and now, that this is an extremely unusual thing that I have absolutely no intention or desire to repeat in the future. Does that satisfy everyone? [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


===November 14===
===November 14===

Revision as of 22:06, 3 November 2008

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 and Gog the Mild, 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.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

 – Check TFAR nominations for dead links

 – Alt text

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

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 November 4 to December 4.

The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page:

Date Article Points Comments
Nov 4 Harriet Tubman 2/3
Nov 4 McCain, Obama IAR Run a double TFA since both are featured
Nov 14 Surtsey 5 45th anniversary of discovery
Nov 15 Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal 9 Bicentennial of opening
Nov 21 The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3 10th anniversary of release next to be replaced

Requests

November 4

Harriet Tubman (1820–1913) was an African-American abolitionist, humanitarian, and Union spy during the U.S. Civil War. After escaping from captivity, she made thirteen missions to rescue over seventy slaves using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad. She later helped John Brown recruit men for his raid on Harpers Ferry, and in the post-war era struggled for women's suffrage. Born into slavery, Tubman was beaten and whipped by her various owners as a child. Early in her life, she suffered a traumatic head wound when an irate slave owner threw a heavy metal weight at her. The injury caused disabling seizures, headaches, and powerful visionary and dream activity. A devout Christian, she ascribed her visions and vivid dreams to premonitions from God. In 1849, Tubman escaped to Philadelphia, then immediately returned to Maryland to rescue her family. Slowly, she brought relatives with her out of the state, and eventually guided dozens of other slaves to freedom. Traveling by night and in extreme secrecy, Tubman "never lost a passenger". When the American Civil War began, Tubman worked for the Union Army, first as a cook and nurse, and then as an armed scout and spy. The first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, she guided the raid on the Combahee River, which liberated more than seven hundred slaves. After the war, she was active in the women's suffrage movement until debilitated by illness. After she died in 1913, she became an icon of American courage and freedom. (more…)

Tallyy: 15 supports and 6 opposes. Nergaal (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 points:

  • 1: Date is relevant to article topic. Nov 4 is U.S. Election day. Tubman was a prominent campaigner for Women's suffrage in the U.S.
  • 1: Notable topic. Harriet Tubman is prominently discussed in U.S. History books. She is probably the most notable African-American woman in U.S. History.
  • 1(?): Diversity: We don't have many African-American women featured on the main page.
  • 2: Main page representation: Haven't seen any abolistionists, feminists (Emma Goldman was early April), or African American women on the main page in 6 months.

Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Three points is correct. This is a rare case where the notable topic point really applies. It would not be unusual for twelve year olds to study Tubman.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • An implication of racism is unwarranted here. History simply doesn't keep track of common people. The vast majority of those who made notable differences in world history pre-1900 were white due to the racism of the time. The common folk, regardless of the color of their skin, were nameless and faceless. This is not a reflection on current policies anywhere, but simply reality. The same holds true today and common people aren't kept track of much and I suspect that the vast majority of us will never make history in any seriously meaningful way regardless of the color of our skin. Pre-1900 history will always have more people who were white who did notable things than those of minorities. History cannot change that. I hope that we can look back on this current time and see a proportional representation across the board where every race and ethnic background is represented appropriately in our history books. That said...
Come down off your high horse, Awadewit, the lack of oxygen is getting to your brain. The enthusiastic response of the community to the Tubman article shows that your implication is unwarranted. Had she been nominated at any time, I think the response would have been the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is which came first. The systemic bias in Wikipedia's articles is well-known and easy to document (there is a whole project dedicated to it) - that it would seep into decision-making is only natural. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am concerned that a featured article on a prominent black woman on election day could cause some consternation with the coinciding vote on that day (let's face facts that the first black candidate with a significant chance is going to be on the ballot and some people are going to jump to the conclusion of bias on Wikipedia). However, my concern is mitigated by the fact that her efforts towards women's suffrage are pretty substantial. If Raul doesn't choose her for 4 November, I would request that she be given another day around that time or of significant linkage to election rights (such as Inauguration Day or the date when the electors in the electoral college meet). IMHO, the potential point total is immaterial. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 points makes no difference to me. — BQZip01 — talk 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding, Maria.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to McCain/Obama; would support for Nov 5Comment My miscalculation. Still support, but only as a two pointer--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Oppose Nov 4, Support Nov 5, regardless of what we all may think, we are a limited group of editors who view and use this page; this will be viewed by some (many?) as a controversial mainpage choice for election day, and it may stir controversy and criticism of mainpage choices. I don't believe we should go there; we get enough complaints already. On the other hand, I think it would be an excellent choice for November 5, when people's minds will still be on elections, but running the article won't open us up to criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we shouldn't put Harriet Tubman on the main page on election day because she's black? Do you realize how crazy that is? (Not to mention the irony that Tubman was probably a Republican!) I thought it would be a good suggestion precisely because it would avoid partisan controversy. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've read my post above over and over and I sure can't locate those words or anything similar to them; maybe you can point them out to me or explain if you're reading invisible words between the lines that I didn't write? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it a "controversial" choice, then? Please explain more clearly. Awadewit (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy, I assumed your criticism was a continuation of BQZip01's concerns above. If that is not the case, please let us know what you actually meant. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Assumptions often lead to misinterpretation: I thought I had clarified below when I added, "Drama will unfold if we do anything on Nov 4 that anyone can perceive as election related ... " Some readers will see it as a statement about female candidates, some will see it as a statement about black candidates, some will see it as the mainpage being too US centric, some will see it as politicizing the mainpage, and so on. My point is that drama may unfold if we do anything that can be perceived as election related on the mainpage on Nov. 4. The buck stops with Raul, he gets to make that decision. I'm just saying that those of us who opine here are a very small group, the wider audience always reads "something" into mainpage choices, drama will likely unfold, and one way to solve that is to run her the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly, I don't think we should pander to people who make ridiculous arguments. I believe that makes us complicit in those arguments. If we agree there is no conflict with the election, we should put it up. We should not retreat in the face of ignorance. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, Raul gets to make that decision, but he needs to see a full discussion of all elements of that decision from the community. I withheld an oppose once on a TFA request that I thought was extremely insensitive because the nominators, I thought, had agreed to ask for a different day; considering that experience, I don't think it helps TFA/R or Raul to not raise all issues here. Having done that, I don't question his decisions; I misjudged the other situation and didn't speak up. It's easy to say we shouldn't pander, but less easy to deal with months and months of fallout when unreasonable objections to Raul's choices are put forward, here and on the talk page of the main page. Only in recent months, and after many long months of discussion, have we gotten this page under control, after many months before that of unjust accusations about Raul's choices and practical mutiny based on individual's wanting their article featured at any cost. I have full confidence that Raul will make a good decision, but I don't think we help him make those choices by not raising issues for discussion. I know what kind of vandalism occurs on school holidays on my watchlist: I'm not anxious to add to that, even if it's only perception that leads to criticism of the election day choice. But I'm probably overly conservative on that score: someone will probably deal with the vandalism if we run this or the McCain/Obama combo, but it will be a long day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit my comment about Tubman affecting an election was mostly facetious. I can't imagine the cranial gymnastics that would be required to compare Tubman's role in helping escaped slaves to perhaps the first black president in the US. To those obsessed with race it will be a big deal and they will complain (in fact, I imagine they would complain upon seeing the article on any day). However, certainly Obama and Tubman have nothing in common other than race. Would someone holding a sign at a polling place the morning of November 4 reading "Remember Harriet Tubman" affect the way you vote? It would puzzle me. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drama will unfold if we do anything on Nov 4 that anyone can perceive as election related: I'm in favor of not touching it with a ten-foot pole (same for the McCain, Obama proposals). People say the darnedest things about Raul's mainpage choices, but ... that's why he gets paid the big bucks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that someone would make a big deal of it just makes me want it more now, I admit. I'm not a fan of placating masses of people to avoid unpleasant opinions, particularly if those opinions are not well-formed and come from a place of knee-jerk reaction to something as arbitrary as race. I understand your hesitancy to avoid teh dramaz since you get a heck of a whole lot of it in other places here, but I can't even imagine trying to form a cause and effect relationship (or draw a schematic) between Tubman on the front page and Obama being elected president. People will perceive the placement of Bob Ross on the front page related to the election. Happy votes. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't putting Tubman up really an endorsement of the McCain-Palin ticket, since Tubman is a woman? Or maybe it is a subtle endorsement of the Hillary write-in vote? Doesn't gender trump race? (Awadewit adds more insane arguments to the mix.) I would say that we should be able to put up an article related to the American elections, particularly becuase it is about a topic that is 150 years old. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandy. If McCain were to be featured on this day or Obama were to be re-featured on this day, this might see Wikipedia as a biased enterprise. I don't see personally how Palin connects to Tubman, since Tubman was an abolitionist and Palin is a state governor. If McCain or Obama wins on Nov. 4th, I think the President-elect's biography should be featured on Jan. 20th, but that's my two cents. miranda 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy is opposing Tubman. Also, I think you misunderstood my post - I was trying to point out the convoluted argument behind that opposition - it was not a serious argument. Awadewit (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Fine, Washington, D.C. - has some tangential connection to the date and should be neutral to all sides. But I'm tempted to suggest Nimrod Expedition since their march started 100 years ago today. Gimmetrow 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just how nutty this sounds: Jim Bowie was a white man with military history. Putting him on the main page would prejudice the main page towards John McCain. I'm not being facetious this time, though. If Harriet Tubman invites too much controversy, then we should choose no white man or woman, no black man (or woman), no topics about Delaware, Alaska, Illinois, or Arizona...Kenya or all of Africa...Kansas, Vietnam, Russia (or within sight of Russia)...ok people are out that day. Something to do with math or science. But no economics, stem cell research or abortion. Reading this back to myself makes me seem really vindictive, as if I'm saying since we can't put on the main page who I want then no one goes on the main page. In actuality, we either take it seriously that we must not provoke protest from any group of people, or we tell them to shut up and deal with it. It seems contradictory to the not censored nature of Wikipedia that we would go to such extreme lengths to deliberately avoid controversy, though. It's kind of why I'm here - to help educate people about controversial topics. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my subtle point. If there is a problem with running Bowie that day, then there is a problem with running Tubman that day. If the TFA is to be topical for the day, the one that seems neutral to me is Washington D.C. If something like that wouldn't work, then stay away from anything US-related. Gimmetrow 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec with Moni) Please God (or Raul), not James Bowie. I can see it now... James Bowie, a nineteenth-century American pioneer and soldier, was a (Democrat or Republican) who caused the f!@#@ Iraq War and put the economny in the !@#* TOILET & WHY CANT I VOTG3 I NO STUFF too?.... I'll probably be waiting in line to vote all day and won't be able to watch the poor thing. Then again, maybe a lot of the vandals will also be waiting in line...but no, they aren't old enough ;) And Moni is right...Bowie was a white man who served in the military and was sort of captured (in a siege) by the opposing side. Plus he died in Texas, which is a red (Republican) state. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not American, but I like the John McCain—Barack Obama double TFA idea. It would require some policy-bending, but ultimately benefitial, I think. --maclean 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if a US-related article is to run on the US election day, would there be any problems with running Washington, D.C.? Gimmetrow 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not opposed to the Tubman idea, but upon reflection I think I prefer the rule-bending Obama/McCain idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like the rule-bending McCain/Obama double TFA. This is the perfect opportunity to do something different (we're really way too hidebound), and really showcase the project's ability to write neutrally and intelligently on controversial and timely subjects. Tubman's a truly great article and will be just as great on any other day. The connection to election day is a bit of a stretch, especially when we could do something as relevant as the actual candidates. --JayHenry (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - seeing as the McCain/Obama idea has some pretty solid support, could someone nominated it here so that we can get a formal tally of those who support and oppose this idea? I don;t know the mechanics of how this would be done so I defer to someone else on proposing it. Remember (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Neither do we, this is not set up for a double nomination. However, why not nominate the McCain article and then put the burbs for both in. Obama can't be nominated, because he has already run (so to speak). By my calculations, McCain gets one point for date relevance, one point for notable topic (I'm willing to bet twelve year olds study the election) and possibly one point for no prior TFAs if Ferrylodge or Wasted Time R, the principal authors, one or both hasn't had a TFA. You could replace the Dr. Who article and insert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really feel right replaceing Dr. Who since there has been so much debate on this. Perhaps Raul can say specifically how he would want to poll support/opposition for the McCain/Obama thing since he will make the final decision anyway. Thoughts Raul? Remember (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind if someone wants to remove the Doctor Who article, if someone thinks that it would be useful to put the double-nomination up. I don't think that nominating McCain alone would be productive, though — we can't do just one candidate. I think that WP:NPOV trumps our "only once on TFA" rule. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Nov.4 for Tubman, Nov. 5 for the McCain-Obama double article. The Nov 5 update would start at 7pm Eastern Time on Election day (Well after the key "swing states" will have been called on TV, so I don't see how anybody could accuse us of pushing one candidate) and right about this time many people throughout the world may ask themselves "who really is this guy Candidate XYZ, who's probably going to be the most powerful guy on the planet for the next 4 years?" and Wikipedia will have the answer, right on the main page, right when they need it. Smallbones (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we could just move Tubman to Nov. 3 or Nov. 5 since the only real reason she is suggested for Nov. 4 is because it is election day (and the Obama/McCain idea obviously has more relevance for election day than Tubman). Remember (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good case for bending rules; I would put the double TFA for Obama-McCain in place of Dr Who, because Dr Who will have time to come back before it's scheduled, and get an up-down vote on both Tubman and the double TFA. I think this is a case where being tied to the "one mainpage appearance" for Obama can be ignored, as it would be running with McCain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps whenever someone puts up the duo, the Tubman nominator will gracefully change the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose putting Harriet Tubman up on this date, and support putting McCain/Obama up. The articles will need to be semi-protected, and yes, Obama was on the main page in 2004. But think it's okay to ignore some rules in this case. I knew that Obama was a FA, but didn't realized that John McCain was a featured article, having missed it when it came to FAC. I'm very pleased that we have FAs for both candidates, which is the result of excellent work by those involved, and those maintaining the Obama page. --Aude (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree. Why doesn't someone replace who with what is on the talk page here and get this going? I don't want to do it because I put in the canal on behalf of someone else.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ties in with the day but doesnt make Wikipedia a target of Political POV to whitewash article. Gnangarra 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has relevance to the day in question without being specifically political. "I don't think we should pander to people who make ridiculous arguments. I believe that makes us complicit in those arguments." Well said, Awadewit. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC) And I'd just like to add that whatever is done on the fourth, we should avoid featuring prominent white people. Let's face facts: one of the candidates is white and we might be seen to be biased. Marskell (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue firmly in cheek?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bet. Marskell (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I grant little weight to the suggestion that wikipedia would give the appearance of bias (to any reasonable person) by putting a black woman on the front page, but I think any day but the 4th is good. I like the rule-bending double TFA too much. Sort of like the New York Times which printed the tuesday crossword puzzle clues to read "Bob Dole" or "Bill Clinton" wins the 1996 election, depending on how you solve the puzzle. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 4a

John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967, during the Vietnam War, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. He served two terms, was elected to the Senate in 1986, and re-elected in 1992, 1998, and 2004. (more…)

Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004. (more…)
version 2
Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70 percent of the vote. (more…)
John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967, during the Vietnam War, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. He served two terms, was elected to the Senate in 1986, and re-elected in 1992, 1998, and 2004. (more…)
Tally: 28 supports and 12 opposes Nergaal (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run an unprecedented double TFA, using John McCain and Barack Obama (per talk). Obama has already been on the mainpage, so this is an IAR, points not applicable. Let's get this up for opinions; someone add a blurb pls. (Although I added this, I should not be tallied as a Support; I abstain.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this proposed blurb passes the word count and space limits for the TFA; pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's a 1400-character limit, spaces counted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, it's our standard at TFA to use common names in blurbs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). I think we would be very ill-advised to deviate from our own standard here. Barack Obama and John McCain are the location of the articles and, per our own custom, should be the bolded names in the blurbs. --JayHenry (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point, and I'm going to be bold and remove the middle names and suffixes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to replacing the current McCain blurb (which takes him through his POW captivity and doesn't mention his political career) with the version I suggested below? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did it for the side-by-side (V2) 709 characters + spaces for Obama, 706 for McCain. Evenness in space is important in that format, but it still doesn't look very even. Should the names be linked? Smallbones (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened the prose very slightly to make the lines even (on my monitor; your mileage may vary). I suppose that since we've got "United States Senator" in the first sentence we don't need to say "U.S. House of Representatives" and "U.S. Senate" — it's clear enough from context. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(semi-outdent) Thanks. Why don't you replace the text in the over/under format as well, since it's likely that that's the one that would be used (see Raul's comments below)? If you want to improve even more, you might want to look at all the "He"s that I couldn't deal with on McCain. As far as the over/under format, it might become controversial who's on top (though nobody mentioned anything so far). Since I was the one who suggested it: I put McCain on top because there really isn't an objective way to choose, only traditional arbitrary ways. Seniority is important in the Senate and McCain is the senior senator. Another way might be alphabetical, but it comes up with the same result. Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the McCain text in the over/under format, but based on Raul's disinclination it may be academic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support- (of course). Remember (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Changing vote because it will be seen as a bias to third party members, which have a very strong voice on the internet particularly. The fact that both articles will be fully protected will just enrage people more. To those unfamiliar with the site, it will be like we're saying "This is the authorized version of these articles, approved by us for advertising, and you can't change it even though we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit." The more I think about it, the more it gives me the heebie-jeebies. Wrad (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain and plead chicken; the potential for vandalistic problems and criticism of politicizing the mainpage scares me off. I would be fine with this running on November 5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these articles are fully-protected until after the election (per Wikipedia:ANI#Should_the_election_bios_stay_full_protected_through_the_election). That should take care of the vandalism problems, but I think it is unprecedented to have a TFA fully-protected. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is far more neutral than featuring just the winner on Inauguration Day. I don't think the vandalism should be considered, given that most of it will be reverted and chances are that most of it will occur between three days. I don't really think that vandalism will be worse than any other article on TFA, even if its spread over two articles. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would prefer Nov.4 for Tubman, and Nov.5 for this double. Also think widespread support very important when IAR is invoked. Nov.5 would minimize some of Sandy Georgia's concerns. How long should the blurb be: I see 23 lines, vs. 19,18, 26, and 27 on other articles.Smallbones (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get 1439 characters with spaces, not sure about "combined into one frame" also the 2 space indent on McCain still throws me. McCain was easy to blurb, but the Obama one was harder. In short - I'll try if needed, but could somebody else give it a shot? Smallbones (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed a bit, updated to current articles. I get 694 + 692 characters with spaces. Will the extra picture cause any space problems? Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. During the Vietnam War, in October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and entered politics. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, he served two terms, and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election easily in 1992, 1998, and 2004. (more…)

Is that succinct enough to match the Obama entry? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get 753 characters + spaces vs. 692 for Obama. Otherwise, I have no problem with this. Even having c+s almost equal might be seen as pandering to the "everything must be exactly equal" crowd. Smallbones (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule that we have to truncate the existing lede in the article, or are we allowed to summarize the lede? I would prefer Josiah's summary instead of the truncated version.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no such rule — most TFAs use a summary of the article's lede. In this case, we've got half the space for each article, so we'd need to have a shorter summary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Not the concept of a double TFA or IAR for Obama, but that this is very very bad political territory that may harm the reputation of WP. The winner on Jan 20 makes perfect sense (and agree with IAR for Obama if that's the case). However, this is poking a hornet's nest with a short stick - there will be vandalism galore (thus requiring full protection), and the lack of third party candidates (even if they are snowballs this election) could be seen by some as a political bias. Heck, I'll even suspect that people will complain about who is on top and who is on the bottom pre-election results. --MASEM 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the articles are already fully protected. As for 3d party candidates, they aren't featured articles, and the presidential debates excluded them too.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Users will be very very critical of neutrality and bias on this day, cause flame wars, yadda yadda. Would reccomend waiting until after the election. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - I have no problem with having tie in to current events but we already have enough problems with political POV. This will make it even more imperative for politicians to have people white wash their articles. Gnangarra 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Showing both major candidates on the day of an election is very date related. Hopefully the vandalism and political problems won’t mar the picks. I'm not a big IAR supporter, but this seems great set of picks for this day. Halgin (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but how do we handle other elections, what about bias why only two candidates are we saying the others arent worthy of note. How do we address the situation with a similar request for other countries like UK, Russia, India, Canada, France, Australia. What happens with the next US election candidates will hire editors to whitewash Wikipedia articles and get them to FA standard, consensus is a fickle beast we dont want create have problems with deliberate BIAS/NPOV into the furture. Gnangarra 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like that old "parade of horribles" argument. Other elections we can handle on a case by case basis, if it gives people incentive to bring both major candidates to FA level, God bless. Won't happen often. As for the "infiltration by professional writers", that argument's been around for a while. Good luck bringing an article to FA level while making it so biased it would be worth it to the candidate, and yet so subtle it wouldn't be detected and corrected in what would be a closely watched FAC. Maybe it would flash subliminal messages? Is that the best you've got?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can handle on a case by case basis, in this the request is an IAR. IAR is for when policies get in the way of building an encyclopedia, I given/hinted at WP:BEANS to the problems and issues such an action would create. So how is IAR going to benefit the building of WP, in light of the problems this raises to WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV and what long term benefit is there to Wikipedia? Gnangarra 08:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that putting these two articles on the front page raises any significant problems with WP:BIAS or WP:NPOV at all. The only way this will come up again in the future is if both/all the prominent candidates for a major election have articles which have reached FA. So what if a candidate hires someone to make their Wikipedia page a featured article? Other people will contribute to the article as well, and if the result is biased it won't pass FA. If the article is good and follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it doesn't really matter who wrote it. I don't see the problem here.
As for the long-term benefit to Wikipedia, it's that we will demonstrate that Wikipedia can create neutral, accurate and comprehensive articles about contentious subjects. How is that a bad thing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just the point WP hasnt written neutral and comprehensive articles about the 2008 election, all the major articles give prominance to these two candidates only. This is the WP:BIAS that already exists look at United States presidential election, 2008 it has photos of only two candidates in the infobox, then you read that article it isnt until following a link to List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008 that one finds an accurate list of all candidates.
The tie in directly with the election is the problem with this choice of articles thats because its not comprehensive, it has BIAS, and it isnt neutral. The reason behind this is the lack of FA quality articles for all the candidates, by association holding these two articles up and waving them around saying that Wikipedia can cover contentious subjects is just laughable. I recognise that the most likely the next President of the US will one of these people, but I have yet to see a reason to invoke WP:IAR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
A possible solution is to add a section in the TFA box that links to the list of all candidates. For a comprehensive list of all 2008 Presidential candidates follow this link Gnangarra 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the reliable sources treat these two candidates as the only nationally viable candidates. Barr and Nader may have a small influence on the result, but there's no chance that either man will be the next President. Are you seriously suggesting that we should treat the Boston Tea Party's candidate as if he were equal to McCain and Obama? In this election, the third party candidates are a footnote, and it's not bias to recognize that fact; the TFA blurb is a summary, and minor details are properly omitted from summaries. That's not bias, that's realism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This is a good idea. WP shouldn't duck from featuring extremely topical/political content, but celebrate that it can handle such content at a high-quality level. If you do it on November 5, the GMT start of day will cut in right around the reporting of results in the Eastern U.S., which would be kind of cool. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We are not a newspaper. Will this be done every four years? For elections in the UK will we have three featured articles? How about elections in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the largest English-speaking nation of all, India? Kablammo (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, we are not giving the news. We aren't stating who won the elections and who didn't. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support athough I would STRONGLY suggest to put them side-by-side rather than one on top of the other one. I bet it is doable, although it might require some editing skills... Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an ok starting point:
John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. In October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing torture and refusing an out-of-sequence repatriation offer; his war wounds left him with lifelong physical limitations. (more…)
Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004. (more…)

Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Place them the other way around: people in the US associate the democrats with the left and the republicans as the right, therefore IMO it would make sense to be the democratic candidate on the left and the republican on the right.
I added a little more padding to the central vertical line so the words aren't quite so bunched up. I also bypassed the redirect to the rest of Barack Obama's article ("more" previously linked to Barack Hussein Obama II. It looks good on my 1280x800px display, but feel free to undo me if I broke it on yours.... J.delanoygabsadds 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - As a non-profit organization, Wikipedia cannot legally be seen supporting either candidate for election, if Wikipedia is taking public funds from the U.S. government.[1] Might want to feature the winning candidate on Jan. 20th, though. miranda 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how having both simultaneously is supporting either candidate. On the other hand, putting the winner might give the message that we are support the election (if the likelyhood is that Obama will win, and Wikipedia is already seen as a left-wing "organization" then the chance of misconception of us support Obama all along is much greater than someone interpreting who we support if we put both at the same time). JonCatalán(Talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But again, we are given the two leading candidates coverage over the third-party ones. That's still a bias, despite the fact that the third parties have no serious chance in this election. --MASEM 04:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALL the articles on the election in the US have in the infobox ONLY candidates that have realistic chances of winning. When there were truly 3 candidates with decent chances, the template shows all three, but now there is only an infinitesimal chance that the others can pull anything. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both articles are currently fully protected due to "preemptive" vandalism. Thus IPs and autoconfirmed users cannot edit these articles if both were to be featured on Nov. 4th. miranda 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the meaning of this law. The law applies to supporting or opposing candidates, not providing information in a non-partisan manner for informational/educational purposes. Firstly, the law does not care about our main page. If this was the meaning of the law, then we've already violated it by having these articles. The exact same information is already on the project, and we're just debating here whether or not to put it on the Main Page. This is a prominence/site architecture issue-it is unrelated to the law. If you had correctly understood the law, or if there were a prominence provision, then we've already violated it by mentioning Obama and McCain multiple times at WP:ITN. --JayHenry (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a frame/border around the McCain stuff and a frame/border around the Obama stuff? Anyone know how to do that?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but a) side-by-side is better and b) perhaps with full protection of both pages on the day itself. Alert admins can edit where necessary in response to suggestions on the talk pages. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using TFA for this. I have no great problem with having a double TFA, but I think this would be better in the In the News space, where the articles will need to at least be linked, and where some of the TFA text would probably be duplicated too. I think the TFA for the day should either be something general (if only United States presidential election, 2008 were FA), or completely unrelated. I would be happy with a former US president (eg, Grover Cleveland) for TFA except it could be taken as biased. Gimmetrow 14:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — This is an excellent idea, though I prefer the side-by-side format. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the bias concerns and the fact that Obama has already been on the main page. If this is done, I think the second version (with the bios side by side) is better. -- Zombie Scorpion0422 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. How often do we get two featured articles on politicians running against each other like this? To me this shows how far Wikipedia has come, that we can do this, that we got these two articles to FA in the midst of an epic U.S. presidential election. Yes, if we got Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg (how nice that their parties' strength also coincides with their alphabetical order!) up to FA status by the next British elections, we should do that too! Isn't some possibility like this an incentive to editors to do so? I say go for it (and put them side by side with Obama on the left and McCain on the right). Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. These articles really show Wikipedia at its finest. Despite the fact that this is one of the most brutal, down-to-the-wire elections in United States' history, Wikipedia's contributors have managed to make the articles about both major candidates pass our highest threshold of article quality. That's what Wikipedia is all about - putting aside our personal biases to collectively make something that benefits humanity as a whole. If we do put this on the Main Page, I like the side-by-side version better.
Unfortunately, they would have to be at least semiprotected —- I suppose that no one in their right mind would suggest unprotecting them —- and perhaps fully protected. If we do this, the articles should definitely be copy/pasted to a temporary cascade-protected page to prevent template vandalism. However, considering how many people watch those two articles anyways, combined with how many people (and others) watch TFA, we may be able to get away with semiprotection, even on that day. In any case, leaving TFA protected is not without precedent. J.delanoygabsadds 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If politician FAs are available, shall we be doing this on election day in other Anglosphere countries? If not, why not? And what about the rest of the world? Yes, most everyone on the planet has some interest in who becomes the U.S. president, but this is still systemic bias no matter how you cut it. And I would suggest that supporters who are American take a step back and consider it in these terms. I would support an IAR nom for Obama on inauguration day or perhaps next July 4. But politicizing the main page for the sake of an American election is not a precedent Wikipedia should set. Marskell (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strawman much? Where has anyone suggested that this only be available to Anglosphere countries, or not available to some parts of the world? Systematic bias goes both ways, and avoiding topics because they're political or US based is just that. Ben (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't strawman much (I didn't even know it could be used as a verb...). This is the English Wikipedia. When political partisans turn to the FA process during future elections it will likely come from the Anglosphere. So if we have a British election next year and all three party leaders are FAs do we do something like this again? I suspect it would get voted down. (If it were Sweden or Botswana or Ecuador it would get laughed off the request page.) Of course systemic bias does cut both ways: November 4 is an important day for the U.S. and I don't have a problem TFAing something related to the country. Hence my support for an American bio with some relevance to electoral suffrage above. But this proposal is one suitable for a news site, not an encyclopedia. Marskell (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would wholeheartedly support the same thing happening for any other major election around the world. I do think it will be exceedingly rare that other candidates are both FAs but in that situation I would support that they be featured as well. Remember (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's a bit of a straw man, as there doesn't appear to be a single other country in the world that has leaders of both parties at FA. Moreover, though, I agree with Remember. Why shouldn't we encourage editors from every country to have the most important articles for their civic participation at the highest possible standard? To me, this is one of the greatest possible goods that Wikipedia could accomplish. IF we ever got to the situation where every country was always in the situation, then we could a) applaud ourselves for one of the Wiki's greatest accomplishments ever and b) find a new mechanism other than TFA to showcase our historic accomplishment. If the heads of the leading parties of Botswana are at FA status the next time Botswana has an election, I explicitly ask to be invited to this page so I can support it being featured prominently, so I may award barnstars to the editors who accomplished this highly laudable effort, and so I can troutslap whoever thinks we're taking slots from something more important. Geez, Marskell, I dream about the day where we have too many African politicians at FA. --JayHenry (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, why do you think people will oppose a similar proposal come the next Botswana election, provided the relevant FA's exist, any more than this one? It would be brilliant if Wikipedia were in a position to do this again, and I'd gladly support it. It seems you believe people have suggested that this should go up because it's a political or US topic, when in fact they suggested and supported it because, in your own words, November 4 is an important day for the U.S. and [they] don't have a problem TFAing something related to the country. I'm not picking on you here, a few others made similar comments, and it just happened your comment was the closest to my own support. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. I'm not American, and I've only been following the election when major things pop up in the news, but I still think this is a brilliant opportunity for Wikipedia to show how far it has come. Ben (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support as long as (a) Josiah's summary is used and (b) Ms. Tubman gets a spot sometime soon. Don't force that article out, and completely screw the main contributor(s) to Tubman simply because of a (admittedly sweet) IAR idea, ok? If Tubman wouldn't get a spot on another day soon, I'd have to oppose strongly. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I think the idea of the "only once on main page" practice is that there are always going to be FAs waiting, and since we promote at the rate of more than one a day, that list is only going to get longer. However, we are still running one FA that day which has not been on mainpage (McCain), so I'd say it was OK. Agreed on Tubman.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Ed's suggestion (see below). But I must say, I think it is best to leave both candidates up, even on Nov 5. We'll put up Ms. Tubman on the 6th. (WP:NEU) —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm glad to see that both are featured. I would also say that we would find it hard to snag a more date-appropriate subject. Not only that, but this is our chance to show the world that we can produce quality, topical work on controversial subjects. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break

  • Comment If we are going to go all IAR on everyone, why not leave (the winning or both(?)) candidates(s) there for the 4th and 5th? (Ok, assuming both stay on just for the sake of plurals) If people want to know who the people are after the election, look, there they are! This is special, because a chance like this won't come around again for four years...and who is to say that both will be featured then? I think that leaving one/them for both days this could generate some good press for Wikipedia too! .......what do you guys think? —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slashed per Raul's comments below. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose that. Too cute, and too much. We're stretching a point, and I think this pulls it too far.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ed's nutshell idea per Wehwalt. Let's keep it as simple as possible. Smallbones (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing this for its "cuteness" vale; rather, I prefer this because we will not have another chance to try this, and it will generate good press coverage for Wikipedia. Besides, two TFA's should be on for two days, right? :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 22:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I can see it now:
  • Chozick, Amy. "Still Don't Know Who The Candidates Are? Check Out Wikipedia!", Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2008, p.1
  • Nagourney, Adam. "Wikipedia runs two featured articles at the same time for two days", New York Times, November 6, 2008, p.1
  • Milbank, Dana. "Real election winner: Wikipedia", The Washington Post, November 7, 2008, p. A2
I kid of course, but we shouldn't be making our decision off hypothetical press coverage. You ask "why not" do this. We could easily ask "why not" do anything (and hope for good press--when frankly the press is unlikely to be watching or caring). It's getting it all backwards. We're already suggesting a pretty bold pushing of the envelope (that a lot of editors are already uncomfortable with). So to push it even further we'd want a really coherent reason to do that. Why are we trying this? What, exactly, are we even trying? We have answers to those questions for running articles about presidential candidates on the day of their election. We don't have clear reasoning at all for why we'd do it again the next day. I would imagine that once the election is called the winning candidate will move over to WP:ITN, for those still looking for information. --JayHenry (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, use the ITN space to begin with. This TFA proposal would set a big precedent - the first time any FA ran a second time as TFA. Wikipedia is already accused of having a "liberal bias" - it doesn't help making this particular article the first exception. It also opens up another 1500 or so past TFAs for potential repeat appearances. Please use the ITN space, not TFA space. Gimmetrow 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't necessarily set a precedent. I don't think anyone references what happened to the Main Page during 1 April 2005 for support. We can't avoid press coverage since Wikipedia's top 10 site. — Dispenser 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, this would be an exception or outlier to the rule, and it would not not start a new precedent. I think that we should make some exceptions in exceptional cases anyway—wasn't that one of the reasons why IAR was written? When he was featured in 2004, he was not even close to running for President... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mars ran as TFA in 2007, a lander verified the existence of ice water. Should Mars rerun since something significant has happened? Why or why not? Even if you can find a reason why other articles can't use this precedent, Wikipedia is already accused of having a "liberal bias", and it doesn't help making this particular article the first exception. Gimmetrow 01:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose this article, or an extension. I still vote in the US, despite not living there any more, and I have always resented this attitude that only two parties count. If you want to put up a grid of candidates, go ahead, but there are several dozen candidates for president. I wouldn't vote for either of these two men under any circumstances, and can't see why Wikipedia would make it seem that they are the only choices.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, I have some questions, if you don't mind, about the "grid" that you're suggesting. Would it have to include the fascist candidate Jackson Kirk Grimes, even though his Wikipedia article has been deleted? How about Ralph Nader whose Wikipedia article has been de-listed as a "good article"?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Exactly. We are not trying to make it seem as though they are the only choices for the general election. We are not suggesting these candidates because they are members of the United States' largest political parties. These are the only two candidates for this election whose biographies are featured articles. If any other of the candidates' pages were featured, I have no doubt that they would be included. J.delanoygabsadds 00:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would be willing to bet that if a third-party candidate had a featured article, that would probably not be included in this proposal, due to arguments like Ottava Rima's. I just don't like having any subset of candidates as the featured article. If we ever hit a case where every candidate had a featured article, I could go for it, but such a case is unlikely to ever occur.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides FA status, there are plenty of objective reasons to not cover 3rd party candidates like the big two in this election. Polling is the principle one, as high poll numbers bought Ross Perot a spot at the debates in 1992. Media coverage is another. Our objective is verifiability in secondary sources, not diving truth by our own analysis. And the media coverage this cycle is disproportionately on these two.--chaser - t 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chaser is correct. It's not bias to ignore candidates who are treated as footnotes by all the reliable sources. We're not saying that these two are the only choices; we're saying that they're the ones who are treated as serious candidates by reliable sources. That's not bias, it's realism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia is US based and this would be a good idea. Plus, people from all over the world will be tuning into this election. Ottava Rima (talk)
  • Support Good idea.--chaser - t 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I love the idea. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I think this is an excellent idea that would really highlight how Wikipedia has succeeded in overcoming the problems of political bias. Also, none of the opposes bring any convincing (imho) reasons not to go ahead with this. The opposition based on US-centricity is a non-issue imo because #1, nearly 60% of this site's traffic already comes from the US, #2, this election has been clearly and reliably demonstrated to be closely followed by people around the world in addition to US citizens, and #3, we feature articles about topics pertaining to specific countries around the world on a regular basis and no one ever complains we have a bias toward them (for example, today's FA is Delhi; anyone complaining we are India-centric?). I also don't see an issue of politicizing the Main Page because any article could potentially be seen as "politicizing" Wikipedia (Israel anyone?) and a policy like that would exclude a large proportion of FAs from ever appearing on the Main Page. POV in the articles isn't a problem because they wouldn't be FAs if they had it (and the side-by-side configuration eliminates the other issue with this). The issue of "other" candidates is outlined above by Josiah Rowe. And finally, on vandalism... umm... not trying to be disrespectful here, but I am absolutely dumbfounded that anyone would oppose for this reason. All TFAs get a ton of vandalism. This one will simply get more. Are we to make the hundreds (thousands?) of hours of hard work put in these articles come to naught because of the vandals? That (imo) defies the whole purpose of fighting vandalism at all. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And those supporting have not given any convincing reason why these articles should run in TFA space. Use the "In the News" space for this - that's more appropriate. Gimmetrow 01:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is the first time a major event has occurred that Wikipedia has FA(s) about before it happens, I don't see why we shouldn't jump at the chance for a little "showing off" of our content with more than a blurb in "In the News". Either way, I don't really care if it goes on the Main Page or not, but I do think it's an outstanding idea. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can it be replicated on a more regular basis in future? To include the other English speaking nations mentioned above (also Ireland which gets forgotten about a lot)? Or perhaps for other two-way events of significance? Or a doubler on a festival of some sort, (just missed Halloween, how about Christmas?) If so, I like it. As for the suggestion that this could only happen every four years - there are other countries out there who won't be waiting four years... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That seems silly to me. We already have an over representation of some types of articles on the main page. If we did what you just suggested we would have a politician(s) being featured on the main page every week if not few days. I'm still very opposed to this idea. Also what makes the elections in the US more notable then the ones in Russia per say hmm? --Kuzwa (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hits does not signify importance. I wouldn't be surprised if video game articles get farm more "hits" on Wikipedia than events such as The War of 1812, Civil War etc... Just because Wikipedia is "American based" dosen't mean we should feature everything that is more important to America differently than others. It adds an enormous amount of bias. That is the last thing that Wikipedia needs. --Kuzwa (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul's thoughts on the election-day TFA

Here are my thoughts on the objections raised here, in order from least-to-most concern.

  • Don't do it, because "As a non-profit organization, Wikipedia cannot legally be seen supporting either candidate for election, if Wikipedia is taking public funds from the U.S. government" (-Miranda)
    • I'm not a lawyer, but there are several things wrong with this statement. First - unless it was the recipient of a NEA grant that I haven't heard about - the WMF doesn't get any money from any level of the US government. The WMF is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 non-profit. This means the government doesn't treat donations ot the foundation as taxable income. (In other words, the government doesn't take money from the foundation, which is *not* the same as giving it to them) The rules governing non-profits are that they cannot endorse a candidate officially. This is a *much* higher bar than "be seen as supporting a candidate". Many, many nonprofits out there clearly support one candidate or another. It is quite obvious who the NAACP wants to win this election, for example. They are not, however, allowed to endorse a candidate. Therefore, this objection is not a concern insofar as running FAs on the main page.
  • Don't do it because of the potential for vandalism.
    • The articles will be fully protected until after the election. Therefore, this is not a concern.
  • Don't do it because it shows bias against third party candidates.
    • With all due respect to the third party candidates, none of them has a realistic chance of winning. If there was a third party candidate who was running and had a viable chance of winning, he/she would be included in this discussion. None of them do, so I don't think it's worth getting too worried about it.
  • Don't do it because Barack Obama has already been featured on the main page.
    • I'd prefer not to repeat any articles. I'm willing to make an exception for important cases, but that risks creating a slippery slope. We must bear in mind that if we do it in this case, people will want to run double (or triple, etc) FAs in the future for less important reasons. So I'm not saying no for this reason - I'm saying that it's a big concern.
  • Don't do it because having two FAs on the main page is a slipppery slope.
    • I agree (somewhat). I'm not fond of the prospect of having more of these requests, but I'm not absolutely ruling it out just because of the potential for future headaches.
  • Don't do it because it will conflict with ITN
    • This is, IMO, the most important concern raised here. I do not wish for the TFA to conflict with ITN. ITN's job is explicitely to cover news topics. And there's really no way to avoid a conflict except to have ITN not report on it at all, which is just silly.

Overall, I'm disinclined to run these as the FA. I'm not absolutely ruling it out, and there's still a good 12 hours before I have to make up my mind. But, I think it might be worth doing something like this on ITN instead. That seems like a far more appropriate venue for this.

Side notes:

  • I prefer the above/below look rather than side-by-side. The side-by-side look has extremely crammed text next to the pictures, and looks rather unpleasant.
  • About the names - yes, I always use the title of the article (Barack Obama, John McCain) when doing the write up.
  • As far as Harriet Tubmanl, I think the Nov 5 suggestion is excellent. If we don't run McCain/Obama on the 4th, I'll definitely use Tubman on the fifth.
  • If I don't use McCain/Obama on the 4th, what do you guys want to see?
  • Running the FAs on two consectuvie days is no... just no. I really don't care for that idea.

I'm about to go to bed. I'll check here late tomorrow morning/early afternoon EDT and see where the discussion has gone. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your thoughts on being US centric, Raul? Marskell (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding running Obama for a second time on the Main Page, here is the version of the article that passed as a FA in August 2004. The article subsequently appeared on the Main Page on August 18, 2004, which is many many moons ago. That version wouldn't even be a WP:GA today. The article is completely different now. If the article appeared on the main page in 2005 or later, I would be more inclined to disagree with running the article for a second time. My opinion on all this would be exactly the same if John McCain was on the main page in 2004, instead of Obama. --Aude (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see a conflict with ITN. Just a few days ago, we had Halloween-themed material as TFA, as well as DYK and the featured picture. ITN would be more focused on the 2008 elections article, which is the main article to be updated and bolded, with the latest election results numbers. Also, I looked over on WT:ITN and realized that the elections article won't be updated and suitable for ITN until we have some results, which will be in the evening (US time) when TFA switches over to the November 5 article. --Aude (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think the ITN issue should be of major concern. The ITN will most likely just have a one sentence blurb about the election and so readers will not know that we have both major candidates articles up to FA status. Plus the major link on the ITN section will most likely be the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and not Obama or McCain since they are not the news event. Having Obama and McCain in the TFA section of the main space will let readers know immediately that we have those two highly pertinent articles up to FA quality if they want to read about it. Plus, I don't think there will ever be a more relevant time to feature both McCain or Obama on the mainspace than on election day. By far and away, these articles are the most relevant of any FAs to the events of that day. Remember (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia readers don't know anything about "FA Status", they just see that we are featuring articles about Obama and McCain. If they also see that we are featuring them in ITN, they will rightfully conclude that Wikipedia is rather obsessed with the U.S. election. Kaldari (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think IARs can/should ever be brought up as precedents. If that were the case, it means that the actual rules in discussions have serious weaknesses and should be therefore completely rethought. ITN part may mention only the main article of the election, w/o giving specific names until an actual presumtive winner is known. That cannot reasonably happen before ~7pm eastern, when the TFA is almost done anyways. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Washington, D.C.

Raul, in reply to your request for alternatives: Washington, D.C. DrKiernan (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea doc, except Delhi is today. Marskell (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see something completely unrelated on Nov. 4: like some animal from bio. Or better ... since it's hard for Raul to run his own FA ... I request parallel computing. That'll generate enough complaints on election day :-)) Oh, look, the featured article director ran his own FA !! Has anyone notified ITN of this discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see much of a conflict with ITN. From their talk page it looks like they won't run an article until after the winner is agreed on - which will be at least a couple of hours after this TFAR is removed. (ITN folks might want to check this). More importantly, we wouldn't be running news, but some of our best encyclopedic content, which while being very useful in understanding the news, is not news in itself.
As far as "slippery slope" arguements - I agree with Nergal "IAR's" should never be brought up as precedent. We should go further and make clear here that this IAR is based on an extraordinary situation and is not meant in any way as a precendent. What's extraordinary? 1) 2 long term FAs (2 months+, 4 years+) are directly related to an extraordinary election. 2) the election is extraordinary in that voter registration has jumped (after a long decline) to above the 1964 level, and turnout of registered voters is expected to be at record levels. 3) the vote (subjectively) seems to be as important world-wide as to US citizens. 4) The 28 supports (so far) are 3-4 times the usual number of supports an article gets on this page.
We can very easily just outright refuse to consider any request for 3 TFARs at the same time (from space considerations) and say that a double has to be justified by something at least as important as this election, as well as the condition that both articles must have been FAs for over 2 months. (Maybe that would be seen as setting a precedent - but it would eliminate 99.9% of such requests)
A couple of folks at the ITN talk page are also involved here. Yes, please run Parallel Computing if McCain/Obama doesn't run. My other second choice is Obama/McCain  ;) Smallbones (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that since ITN is not going to run anything specific about the candidates themselves until there is a reasonable chance that we could know who the winner is, I don't think there is a major problem with running the Obama/McCain duo. As far as setting a dangerous precedent, I don't know about that. I really don't think it will be a major problem, but I can see the future just as well as anyone else.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is, to me, the ITN concern does not seem to be a major problem, since ITN will be running info about the election itself, not the candidates. I don't know about setting a precedent. The other concerns you mentioned in your post seem to be negligible to me. J.delanoygabsadds 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt ITN will run a blurb linked to Obama or McCain, leaving out the 3rd party candidates, on election day. The only links will likely be to United States presidential election, 2008 or United States Senate elections, 2008 or United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. --maclean 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's not really a conflict with ITN. ITN says, "This is going on" (and once there's a victor will say, "this is who won".) The proposed TFA would say, "These are the people who are running, and look, Wikipedia has excellent articles about them." It's equivalent to a sidebar: complementary, not conflicting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I have on precedent is that it may be seen as the green light for any pair of FAs that are closely related to apply to be on the main page together. Hanna and Barbera has been kicked around recently, I believe. Wikipedians are bright, and are endlessly inventive when it comes for finding reasons for what they want.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How would it conflict with ITN? By the time ITN is updated with the results, it will be November 5 and there would be a new article on the main page. In fact, there will be a new article on the main page by the time most states' polls close on Election Day (new article goes up at 7pm EST). -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 pm EST. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. DST ended yesterday. East coast is now UTC -5. :) - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Smacks head on desk* Idiot, idiot, IDIOT! :) Never mind... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Raul, the main concerns you raise are ITN and slippery slopes for rerunning a single article as well as running multiple articles.
    • According to Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com[2], the earliest the election can be called is 10pm EST. That translates to 3:00 UTC, November 5th. ITN should definitely not call it until 5-6:00 UTC, to be safest. So there is no conflict either. And it really is OK for Barack Obama and John McCain to be listed on the Main Page for several days, albiet in different sections.
    • Slippery slope for running the same article - As others have mentioned, a precedent already exists IAR? Plus, the old article would never have passed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slippery slope for running 2 articles at once - IAR handles this one. And plus, if two featured articles just have to be mentioned together, there is no problem in doing so. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so as I read this, ITN isn't going to do anything with the election until after midnight UTC. If that's the case, my largest worry is alleviated. My second worry is setting precedents with regard to featuring (A) two articles at once, or (B) featuring articles on the main page a second time, remain. However, I think this can be dealt with by me saying, here and now, that this is an extremely unusual thing that I have absolutely no intention or desire to repeat in the future. Does that satisfy everyone? Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Surtsey is a volcanic island off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63°18′11″N 20°36′17″W / 63.303°N 20.6047°W / 63.303; -20.6047 it is also the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963. The eruption may have started a few days earlier and lasted until 5 June 1967, when the island reached its maximum size of 2.7 km² (1.0 mi²). Since then, wind and wave erosion has seen the island steadily diminish in size: as of 2002, its surface area was 1.4 km² (0.54 mi²). The new island was named after the fire god Surtr from Norse mythology, and was intensively studied by volcanologists during its creation and, since the end of the eruption, has been of great interest to botanists and biologists as life has gradually colonised the originally barren island. The undersea vents that produced Surtsey are part of the Vestmannaeyjar (Westmann Isles) submarine volcanic system, part of the fissure of the sea floor called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Vestmannaeyjar also produced the famous eruption of Eldfell on the island of Heimaey in 1973. The eruption that created Surtsey also created a few other small islands along this volcanic chain, such as Jólnir and other unnamed peaks. Most of these eroded away fairly quickly. (more…)

Points: 5 Points: Promoted on August 19, 2005, two or more years ago: 2 points, Discovered on 14 November 1963 so date relevant to article topic: 1 point, A similar article (no volcanoes) has not been featured on the main page for 6 months: 2 points Halgin (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

The steam crane at Mount Sion, on the Bury arm
The steam crane at Mount Sion, on the Bury arm

The Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal is a disused canal in Greater Manchester, North West England, built to link Bolton and Bury with Manchester. The canal, when fully opened, was 15 miles (24 km) and 1 furlong (200 m) long. It was accessed via a junction with the River Irwell in Salford. Seventeen locks were required to climb to the summit as it passed through Pendleton, heading northwest to Prestolee before it split northwest to Bolton and northeast to Bury. Between Bolton and Bury the canal was on the same level and required no locks. Six aqueducts were built to allow the canal to cross the rivers Irwell and Tonge, as well as various minor roads. The canal was commissioned in 1791 by local landowners and businessmen and built between 1791 and 1808, during the Golden Age of canal building, at a cost of £127,700. Originally designed for narrow gauge boats, the canal was altered during its construction into a broad gauge canal to allow an ultimately unrealised connection with the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. The canal company later converted into a railway company and built a railway line close to the canal's path, which required modifications to the Salford arm of the canal. (more…)

Nominated on behalf of Parrot of Doom. Six points centennial, one point no prior TFA Parrot of Doom, two points for no similar articles in six months. I support on my own behalf.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is an action-adventure video game developed by Nintendo's Entertainment Analysis and Development division for the Nintendo 64 video game console. It was released in Japan on November 21, 1998; in North America on November 23, 1998; and in Europe on December 11, 1998. Originally developed for the Nintendo 64DD peripheral, the game was instead released on a 32-megabyte cartridge, at the time the largest-capacity cartridge Nintendo had produced. It was re-released on the Nintendo GameCube as part of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time: Master Quest and The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition compilations, on the iQue Player in 2003, and on the Virtual Console in 2007. Ocarina of Time is the fifth game in The Legend of Zelda series in terms of release, but is set before the first four games. The player controls the series' trademark protagonist, Link, in the land of Hyrule. Link sets out on a quest to stop Ganondorf, King of the Gerudo, from obtaining the Triforce, a sacred relic that grants the wishes of its holder. Link travels through time and navigates several dungeons to awaken sages who have the power to seal Ganondorf. Music plays an important role—to progress, the player learns several songs for Link to play on his ocarina or the Ocarina of Time. The game received wide critical acclaim and commercial success. It won the Grand Prize in the Interactive Art division at the Japan Media Arts Festival, and won six honors at the 2nd Annual Interactive Achievement Awards. Despite a November 1998 release, it was the best-selling game of that year, and has sold over 7.6 million copies. It received perfect scores from many publications, most notably Famitsu, and has been featured at or near the top of several "greatest games of all time" lists, including those from Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Trailers, IGN, and Edge. (more…)

Points: 10-year anniversary of original release: 2 points, requestor has not previously had an article appear as TFA: 1 point. Total: 3 points

I know there's a lot of concerns about over-representation of certain topics, which is partially why I've never put in a request for TFA until this. If there were a point for importance within the subject, this would get it. This game has been called the best video game ever made and was the first to receive a perfect 40 from Japan's biggest video game magazine, Famitsu. The game's use of context-sensitive buttons and its targeting system had a big impact on 3D gaming, and continues to have a strong influence nearly ten years later. Pagrashtak 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=249501567"