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 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.  – Check TFAR nominations for dead links  – Alt text

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 July 1 to July 31.

Date	Article	Points	Notes	Supports†	Opposes†
Nonspecific 1	Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)	2	2 years+ FA	3	0
Nonspecific 2	Adrian Boult	3 or 4	2 years+ FA, last comparable article >3 mths	1	0
Nonspecific 3
Nonspecific 4
April 27	Russell T Davies	5	50th birthday, 1+ year FA	1	0
April 28	1923 FA Cup Final	3	90th anniversary, 2+ years FA	1	0
May 2	United States v. The Progressive	1	Date relevance for World Press Freedom Day	3	0
May 3	Mother India	8	Widely covered, 100 years of Indian cinema	7	0
May 12	Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange	2	day of death, 1 yr FA	1	0
May 16	Final Fantasy XI	3	5 years FA, 11th anniversary of release, widely covered, -2 because God of War within a month	4	0

^† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)

Charles Eaton (1895–1979) was a senior officer and pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), and later a diplomat. Born in London, he joined the British Army in World War I and saw action on the Western Front before transferring to the Royal Flying Corps in 1917. Shot down in 1918, he was twice captured by German forces, and twice escaped. Eaton left the military in 1920 and worked in India until moving to Australia in 1923. Two years later he joined the RAAF, serving initially as an instructor. Between 1929 and 1931, he was chosen to lead three expeditions to search for lost aircraft in central Australia, which earned him national attention and the Air Force Cross. In 1939, Eaton became commanding officer of No. 12 Squadron at the newly established RAAF Station Darwin, Northern Territory. Promoted group captain, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1942. He took command of No. 79 Wing at Batchelor, Northern Territory, in 1943, and was mentioned in despatches during operations in the South West Pacific. Retiring from the RAAF in December 1945, Eaton took up diplomatic posts in the Dutch East Indies, heading a United Nations commission as Consul-General during the Indonesian National Revolution. He returned to Australia in 1950, and became a farmer in later life. Popularly known as "Moth" Eaton, he is commemorated by several memorials in the Northern Territory. (Full article...)

2 points (2+ years FA). Partly in response to Bencherlite's appeal for noms a little while ago, but also a personal favourite of mine. It's his search-and-rescue work and post-war career as a diplomat, as much as his achievements as a military pilot, that I think makes him an interesting subject. Plus one reviewer was kind enough to remark on the good choice of photos in the article. Originally proposed this for 27 April, the day he reached (on foot, mind) the crash site of a plane lost in the desert; it was then briefly considered for Anzac Day (25 April) but I'm more than happy to see Military history of Australia during World War II running that day (see hatted discussion below). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Date discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How about 25 April? I bumped you last year for the Anzac Day article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Well on 25 April 1929 he was in the middle of his overland trek to the crash site of those lost airmen, so the date's still relevant to him as well as to Australian service people in general; I have no problem with moving it forward if no-one has anything more appropriate for Anzac Day, and that should definitely qualify for another point... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Military history of Australia during World War II for Anzac Day, perhaps? BencherliteTalk 22:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Sure, maybe -- I'll ping Nick-D as its main editor to see if he has an opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC) I'd support that - the article has been a FA for almost four years, remains in good shape and is a good match for the date. There would be nothing wrong with using the Eaton article for the TFA on Anzac Day though. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Well I'm happy to re-position Eaton among the non-date-specific entries and support Nick's article for Anzac Day. Nick, why don't you nom for April 25 and Ill move the Eaton blurb to a non-specific slot? Bench, minor process query, when moving should we leave the commentary above or just make it like a fresh nom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) You can just copy everything here with an explanation, and {{hat}} / {{hab}} the Anzac discussion. BencherliteTalk 10:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, date slightly immaterial, but this is a rather unusual and interesting individual in a great article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per SchroCat, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Note I'm happy to run this soon, I'll just wait a little while after Anzac Day to avoid any perception of an Aussie military domination of the main page. Bencherlite^Talk 16:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You say it as though that were a bad thing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Boult

Sir Adrian Boult (1889–1983) was an English conductor, known for championing British music. His first major post was conductor of the City of Birmingham Orchestra in 1924. Appointed director of music of the British Broadcasting Corporation (Broadcasting House pictured) in 1930, he established the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which was regarded as among the best in Britain under his chief conductorship. On retirement from the BBC in 1950, he took up the position of chief conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra and, in what was widely called his "Indian Summer", continued to conduct it until his retirement in 1978. He gave the first performance of his friend Gustav Holst's The Planets, and introduced new works by other British composers including Bliss, Britten, Delius, Tippett, Vaughan Williams and Walton, as well as foreign composers such as Bartók, Berg, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Webern. A modest man who disliked the limelight, he felt as comfortable in the recording studio as on the concert platform and made recordings throughout his career, many of which have remained in the catalogue for three or four decades. Prominent conductors influenced by him include Colin Davis and Vernon Handley. (Full article...)

3 or 4 points (promoted 3 years ago, last similar article either Cosima Wagner on 24 December or Charles Villiers Stanford on 30 October). My first suggestion here, so go easy on me if I've miscalculated points or done something else stupid... Espresso Addict (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - but I'm not at all sure about the Broadcasting House image. I'd say better none at all, or possibly a crop of the Adrian Boult Hall image (which is unfortunately a nondescript building on the exterior). Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the Adrian Boult Hall, aside from its nondescript appearance, is it's rather a waste of words in the blurb to introduce it. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Specific date nominations

April 27

Russell T Davies

Russell T Davies (born 1963) is a Welsh television producer and screenwriter notable for the 2005 revival of the classic British science fiction series Doctor Who. Born in Swansea, Davies joined the BBC's children's department on a part-time basis in 1985 and eventually wrote two series for the network, Dark Season and Century Falls. As a freelance writer in the mid-1990s, Davies' early scripts explored concepts of religion and sexuality among various backdrops: Springhill was a soap drama about a Catholic family in contemporary Liverpool; The Grand explored society's opinion of contemporary subjects during the interwar period; and Queer as Folk, his first prolific series, recreated his experiences in the Manchester gay scene. Works during the 2000s include Bob & Rose, which portrayed a gay man who fell in love with a woman, The Second Coming, which focused on the second coming and deicide of Jesus Christ, and Casanova, an adaptation of the Venetian lover's complete memoirs. Davies became the executive producer of the revived Doctor Who series in 2005 and oversaw a surge in popularity that led to the production of two spin-off series: Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures. (Full article...)

5 points: 50th birthday (4 points), FA for 14 months (1 point). Lede considerably shortened from the article's full lede, though a little over 1200. May get more depending on the definition of similar. (Incidentally, the episode "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" will also air on that day) Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Fantastic. Oh, and Allons-y. Also, Geronimo. — Cirt (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The scheduling of this TFA can only be described as timely-wimely. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

April 28

1923 FA Cup Final

The 1923 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and West Ham United on 28 April 1923 at the original Wembley Stadium in London. The showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (better known as the FA Cup), it was the first football match to be played at Wembley Stadium. The final was preceded by chaotic scenes as vast crowds surged into the stadium, far exceeding its official capacity of approximately 125,000. A crowd estimated at up to 300,000 gained entrance and the terraces overflowed, with the result that spectators found their way into the area around the pitch and even onto the playing area itself. Mounted policemen, including one on a light-coloured horse (pictured) which became the defining image of the day, had to be brought in to clear the crowds from the pitch to allow the match to take place. Although West Ham started strongly, Bolton proved the dominant team for most of the match and won 2–0. The pre-match events prompted discussion in the House of Commons and led to the introduction of a number of safety measures for future finals. The match is often referred to as the "White Horse Final" and is commemorated by the White Horse Bridge at the new Wembley Stadium. (Full article...)

3 points: 90th anniversary; 2+ years as FA. Also, I think it's been a little while since we've had a sports TFA.--Chimino (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, File:1923CupFinalaction.jpg is a better pic to use. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know the identities of the players in the pic? If so, we'd have to find a way to work one of them into the lead.--Chimino (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the "white horse" picture is the more memorable of the two proposed images. Bob talk 12:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. As the article says, it is what the match is famous for. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a better version of a picture of the horse out there? A quick Google image search would suggest so, but I'm not sure of the provenance of some of the images. Bencherlite^Talk 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There's this pic, which appears to be a larger version of the same pic. If you think it would look better in the blurb, we can use it. All the others I've seen are worse in rez than the current picture.--Chimino (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support so long as it has indeed "been a little while since we've had a sports TFA". Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Liverpool F.C. in European football 12th Feb is the last football article; at the moment, the latest sports TFA scheduled is Thurman Tucker (US baseball, 14th April). I'm fine with the gap as it currently stands - to keep up with the numbers of sports FAs awaiting their TFA date we ought to be running 10 or 11 per quarter, in fact, and we only had 5 in the first quarter of 2013. But what about 11th May, the date of the 2013 final, for extra appropriateness? Bencherlite^Talk 21:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Either date is fine with me.--Chimino (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2

United States v. The Progressive

United States v. The Progressive was a 1979 lawsuit against The Progressive magazine by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). A temporary injunction was granted against The Progressive to prevent the publication of an article by activist Howard Morland that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. The case was brought before Judge Robert W. Warren, a judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Federal courthouse pictured). Though the information had been compiled from publicly available sources, the DOE claimed that it fell under the "born secret" clause of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Because of the sensitive nature of the information, two separate hearings were conducted, one in public, and the other in camera. The defendants would not accept security clearances, and so were not present at the in camera hearings. The article was eventually published after the government lawyers dropped their case during the appeals process, calling it moot after other information was independently published. Despite its indecisive conclusion, law students still study the case, which tested the limits of the presumption of unconstitutionality attached to prior restraints. (Full article...)

1 point for date relevance (maybe), 3 May being international World Press Freedom Day. Nominated on behalf of WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. It was accepted by the proposer that the article would have would have no chance of being selected for 3 May. It wasn't my intention when I nominated the article at FAC that it would appear so soon, or indeed at all. The irony of the Wikipedia celebrating free speech is not overlooked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blurb is a little short at 966 characters (including spaces), when ideally it would be 1,200 characters. Also, can you either work into the blurb a mention of the building shown in the picture, or use another picture that's more easily mentionable in the blurb (e.g. File:Howard Morland 2008.jpg)? Bencherlite^Talk 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • AAarrgggh, usually you complain that my blurbs are too long. Added a bit about the courthouse. I did not want to use the 2008 pic of Morland because he looks so different from the hippy he was in 1979. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • 1,198 characters.  :-) Excellent! Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 22:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. On behalf of WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, we'd really appreciate if this article could run 2 May or even 4 May so it can be near 3 May 2013, the day of World Press Freedom Day. Thanks so much for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Solid article, fairly relevant to the date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support; a decent article. (If we run it 4 May it will appear on the evening of WPFD as seen from the US, which is where the article has relevance, but either is fine by me) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Can the article on Howard Morland be improved? -- it's likely to get many hits from those like me more interested in personalities than legal judgements, and is currently a stub lacking inline citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Ask him. He is a Wikipedian (User:HowardMorland). Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I have not looked at this article in several years. It is quite good, thanks to recent excellent work by Military History Project people. Yesterday I made my first and only contribution to the article by fixing a link. HowardMorland (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

May 3

Mother India

Mother India is a 1957 Hindi epic melodrama film, directed by Mehboob Khan and starring Nargis, Sunil Dutt, Rajendra Kumar, and Raaj Kumar. A remake of Khan's 1940 film Aurat, it is the story of a poverty-stricken village woman named Radha (Nargis) who struggles to raise her sons and survive against an evil money-lender amidst many troubles. Despite her hardship, she sets a goddess-like moral example of an ideal Hindu Indian woman. In the end, she kills her criminal son for the greater good. Mother India metaphorically represents India as a nation in the aftermath of independence, and alludes to a strong sense of nationalism and nation-building. While some authors treat Radha as the symbol of women empowerment, others see her cast in female stereotypes. The film was the most expensive Hindi cinema (Bollywood) production and earned the highest revenue for any Hindi film at that time. Adjusted for inflation, Mother India still ranks among the all-time Indian blockbusters. Mother India became a definitive cultural classic and is regarded one of the best Indian films. It was India's first submission for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1958, where it made the shortlist. The film won the Filmfare Best Film Award for 1957, and Nargis and Khan won the Best Actress and Best Director awards respectively. (Full article...)

8 Points: Widely covered (2), 100 years of Indian cinema (6). WikiProject India as well as various other institutions are celebrating 100 years of Bollywood on this day: [1], Indian government, Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: For subject matter, and quality of the article. Is the blurb a lottle long? Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Does it seem better now? Cut a little. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Its a subtle differece, but over long blurbs can be slightly dense and off putting. Or maybe I'm just shallow :) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: coincides 100 years of Indian cinema celebration. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support (the pic would be better on the right, right?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, I thought this was a rather interesting article at PR and FAC, and it still is: interesting article about a very interesting film. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I prefer this image of Nargis, though.—indopug (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The image of Nargis uploaded by me was part of the article, however was removed when it was realized that it is not free use under URAA. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support A century of Indian Cinema...nice article to celebrate TheStrikeΣagle 09:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with pic to right. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the post-FAC changes have been detrimental. The image of Khan which was added here is likely not free, and I've nominated it for deletion. That quote at the top of the legacy section is thugly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed image. Both image and quote were present before FAC was complete. 13 March version. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's odd, I don't recall seeing those when I did my image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

May 12

Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange

Lady Grange (1679–1745) was the wife of James Erskine, Lord Grange, a Scottish lawyer with Jacobite sympathies. After 25 years of marriage and nine children, the Granges separated acrimoniously. When Lady Grange produced letters that she claimed were evidence of his treasonable plottings against the Hanoverian government in London, her husband had her kidnapped in 1732. She was incarcerated in various remote locations on the western seaboard of Scotland, including the Monach Isles, Skye and the distant islands of St Kilda. Lady Grange's father was convicted of murder and she is known to have had a violent temper; initially her absence seems to have caused little comment. News of her plight eventually reached her home town of Edinburgh however, and an unsuccessful rescue attempt was undertaken by her lawyer, Thomas Hope of Rankeillor. She died in captivity, after being in effect imprisoned for 13 years. Her life has been remembered in poetry, prose and a play. (Full article...)

postponed from before, FA more than a year: 1 pt, day of death: 1 pt (day of birth not known), woman in history --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, provided the dead link in citation 18 is sorted out. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

May 16

Final Fantasy XI

Final Fantasy XI is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), developed and published by Square as part of the Final Fantasy series. Designed and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka, it was released in Japan on May 16, 2002 for Sony's PlayStation 2, and for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers in November of that year. The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG. The story is set in the fantasy world of Vana'diel, where player-created avatars can both compete and cooperate in a variety of objectives to develop an assortment of jobs, skills, and earn in-game item rewards. Players can also undertake an array of quests and progress through the in-game hierarchy and thus through the major plot of the game. Since its debut in 2002, five expansion packs have also been released along with six add-on scenarios. In 2006, between 200,000 and 300,000 active players logged in per day, and the game was the dominant MMORPG in Japan. Final Fantasy XI has a user base of around 500,000 subscribers, and the total number of active characters exceeds 2 million. It is the most profitable title in the Final Fantasy series. (Full article...)

Final Fantasy XI is the most profitable Final Fantasy game ever made, and still is being updated despite being 11 years old. I nominated it in 2008 and it has successfully kept its Featured Status for five years, the day would be the 11th anniversary of its first release, and the topic is "widely noted". Normally that would be 5 points, but God of War (April 19) will make the date slightly under a month in between video game articles. Maybe the coordinators will be generous and call it 4? In any case, I nominate and support. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The subject needs italics. MMORPG needs to be expanded before you use the acronym. Was FFXI the first cross-platform MMORPG or was it merely the Xbox 360's first cross-platform MMORPG? I was under the impression that it was the former, in which case the wording does not make that clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The article indicates that it is both the first cross platform MMORPG and the first Xbox MMORPG. I fixed the other issues.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Currently, it could be read as being the XBOX's first MMORPG, and (the XBOX's) first cross platfrom MMORPG. I'd suggest rewording to "The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG." to remove the possible ambiguity. Also, on a minor point, isn't it conventionally referred to as "Microsoft Windows" rather than "Microsoft's Windows"? MChesterMC (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Issues fixed Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Support, given MChester's rewording. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Support, which I meant to put in my original comment, but forgot entirely... MChesterMC (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but cmon, nuthin beats Final Fantasy (video game), someone or someones should really work on gettin that one up to Featured Article quality status. :) — Cirt (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

All in good time :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of using a picture of a face, I think deriving a free use word-mark from File:Final Fantasy XI logo.png would be more effective and fitting. File:ChocoboridersFFXI.jpg is essentially a decorative non-free image, the article would be much better served with a combat gameplay image. - hahnchen 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be cool, can anyone make it? I am not talented in that area. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• A word-mark would not be that interesting to look at. The face is more attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The face is not indicative of the subject. Logos are designed to be eye catching and are easily recognisable. - hahnchen 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Logos are. This logo is non-free and cannot be used. Word-marks are not attractive, at all. They are font in an image format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
      • "Word-marks are not attractive, at all"? Because, what, typography is not attractive at all? What complete bullshit. File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg would be a better lead image, distinctive, recognisable, high contrast. - hahnchen 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
        • So having opinions which are not inline with yours is "ridiculous"? Well, I am sorry to have offended your delicate senses. The fact remains that File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg and similar files are plain black text, block letters on a clear or white background, which offer the general reader little more than typing Final Fantasy XI would. Not to mention the word mark on its own is not recognizable as part of the game; the whole logo is, and that's not free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
          • It is ridiculous, hence the continuing existence of word marks. How is a man's face remotely "recognizable as part of the game"? Even those who have played the game, or are familiar with the franchise would not recognise that picture. They would recognise File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg - it turns out that typing plain black text, block letters on a clear or white background - does offer something. - hahnchen 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
            • It appears your definition of ridiculous and the dictionary's is quite different. There are times when wordmarks might be useful (if Coca-Cola were ever to reach FA status, for example), but having a wordmark instead of a picture of someone related to the subject and worth mentioning in the blurb (such as a director, designer, etc.) would be, in my opinion, ridiculous. Try pushing a wordmark cropped from a poster for Ruma Maida, or Jaws; you'll find piles of opposes. If you feel strongly against having the photograph of the developer, this can be run without an image at all.
            • As for your patently POINTY that a man's face is not "recognizable as part of the game", which appears to have been a dig at my opinion on the other proposal below, you are comparing apples and oranges. The image below was created to resemble an early FF logo (but is not actually it, and thus has no EV), while a developer is certainly related to the game in question and worth an image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
              • You'd get piles of opposes if you ran a Google TFA with pictures of Larry/Eric/Sergei. And if you're going to pick on Films, try Star Wars. As for the WP:POINTY part, that was the part I removed. - hahnchen 14:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Google has a fairly widely recognised wordmark (which doubles as its logo), like Coca Cola; Star Wars too, and it's wordmark is essentially the series' logo as a whole. FFXI? Not so much, and the wordmark suggested would be misrepresentation of the actual logo. Hence the comparison to Jaws, for which the wordmark itself is not widely recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: For an image, how about something simple and iconic like for example, File:Sword and crystal.png? — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not an actual image used by the games, and as such there is no EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with photograph or no image, oppose if there's a wordmark. Call it "toy throwing" if you want, but it is patently clear to me that we're not going to draw readers by pushing plain text as an image when other possibilities are available. There's a reason why DYK, OTD, and ITN (almost) never use wordmarks: they aren't attractive. Wordmarks at FP? Ha! I'll eat my blangkon when that happens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps we could just have no image, and let the text speak for itself. Having an image is great, but as we all know, it's very hard to find free use images of video games. So as nominator I would support no image to keep things simple and peaceful :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't mind having no image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Supporting "no image", yet opposing a wordmark is incredibly WP:POINTY. Having nothing is more eye catching that the recognisable series logo? I'm not pandering to this. No image is the worst option. - hahnchen 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • And here you go again with your idea that the wordmark = the logo. It doesn't, which is why the non-free logo is in the infobox and not the wordmark. The logo is recognisable. The wordmark isn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: There's an inconsistency in the date format that needs to be sorted, with four different date formats in the references: 2007-08-01, 05/10/12, January 1, 2006 and 28 January 2013 all showing up. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 picked up on the dates. FNs 36, 37 and 78 also need to be formatted properly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok those are taken care of too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)