Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from July 1 to July 31. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection. Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns. view • • history • watch
Date	Article	Reason	Primary author(s)	Added by (if different)
early July	Alpine ibex	Why	LittleJerry	Dank
July 1	Flag of Canada	Why	Gary	Dank
July 3	Maple syrup	Why	Nikkimaria	Dank
July 4	Statue of Liberty	Why	Wehwalt	Dank and Wehwalt
July 18	John Glenn	Why	Hawkeye7, Kees08	Dank
July 19	John D. Whitney	Why	Ergo Sum
July 21	Ernest Hemingway	Why	Victoriaearle	Dank
July 29	SMS Bodrog	Why	Peacemaker67
August 11	Yugoslav torpedo boat T2	Why	Peacemaker67
August 19	Battle of Winwick	Why	Gog the Mild
August 26	Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347	Why	Gog the Mild
August 31	Rachelle Ann Go	Why	Pseud 14
September	Avenue Range Station massacre	Why (rerun, first TFA was September 3, 2018)	Peacemaker67
September 6	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Sheila1988 ... but see below, July 26, 2025
September 21	Artur Phleps	Why (rerun, first TFA was November 29, 2013)	Peacemaker67
October 1	The Founding Ceremony of the Nation	Why	Wehwalt
October 4	Olmec colossal heads	Why	Simon Burchell	Dank
October 11	Funerary art	Why	Johnbod	Dank
October 14	Brandenburg-class battleship	Why	Parsecboy	Parsecboy and Dank
October 15	Battle of Glasgow, Missouri	Why	HF
October 19	"Bad Romance"	Why	FrB.TG
October 21	Takin' It Back	Why	MaranoFan
October 22	The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes	Why	Your Power, ZooBlazer
October 25	Fusō-class battleship	Why	Sturmvogel_66 and Dank	Peacemaker67
October 25	Katy Perry	Why	SNUGGUMS	750h+
October 29	1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game	Why	PCN02WPS
October 30	Cucurbita	Why	Sminthopsis84 and Chiswick Chap	Dank
October 31	The Smashing Pumpkins	Why	WesleyDodds	Dank
November	Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana	Why	Peacemaker67
November 3	1964 Illinois House of Representatives election	Why	Elli
November 11	Mells War Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 17	SMS Friedrich Carl	Why	Parsecboy	Peacemaker67
November 18	Donkey Kong Country	Why	TheJoebro64, Jaguar	TheJoebro64
November 21	MLS Cup 1999	Why	SounderBruce
November 22	Donkey Kong 64	Why	czar
November 27	Interstate 182	Why	SounderBruce
November 28	Battle of Cane Hill	Why	Hog Farm
December 3	PlayStation (console)	Why	Jaguar	Dank
December 13	Taylor Swift	Why (rerun, first TFA was August 23, 2019)	Ronherry	FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS
December 20	Sonic the Hedgehog 2	Why	TheJoebro64	Sheila1988
December 25	A Very Trainor Christmas	Why	MaranoFan	Sheila1988
2025:
January 8	Elvis Presley	Why	PL290, DocKino, Rikstar	Dank
January 9	Title (album)	Why	MaranoFan
January 22	Caitlin Clark	Why	Sportzeditz	Dank
March 18	Edward the Martyr	Why	Amitchell125	Sheila1988
March 26	Pierre Boulez	Why	Dmass	Sheila1988
April 12	Dolly de Leon	Why	Pseud 14
April 25	1925 FA Cup Final	Why	Kosack	Dank
May 5	Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
June 1	Total Recall (1990 film)	Why		Harizotoh9
June 8	Barbara Bush	Why		Harizotoh9
June 26	Donkey Kong Land	Why		Harizotoh9
June 29	Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347	Why		Harizotoh9
July 7	Gustav Mahler	Why	Brianboulton	Dank
July 14	William Hanna	Why	Rlevse	Dank
July 26	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Tim O'Doherty and Dank
July 31	Battle of Warsaw (1705)	Why	Imonoz	Harizotoh9
August 23	Yugoslav torpedo boat T3	Why	Peacemaker67
August 30	Late Registration	Why		Harizotoh9
August 31	Japanese battleship Yamato	Why		Harizotoh9
September 5	Peter Sellers	Why		Harizotoh9
September 30 or October 1	Hoover Dam	Why	NortyNort, Wehwalt	Dank
October 3	Spaghetti House siege	Why	SchroCat	Dank
October 10	Tragic Kingdom	Why	EA Swyer	Harizotoh9
October 16	Angela Lansbury	Why	Midnightblueowl	MisawaSakura
October 18	Royal Artillery Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 20	Nuremberg trials	Why	buidhe	harizotoh9
December 25	Ho Ho Ho (album)	Why		harizotoh9

For the Signpost article, Choosing Today's Featured Article, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches.

For helpful hints relating to requests, see User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts.

For the editnotice template to be used for the TFA editnotice, see Template:TFA-editnotice.

For the emergency blurbs to be used in the event no TFA is selected in time, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency.

Clarification discussion of "Adding requests"

My sincere apologies to Prioryman, Bencherlite and Ruby2010. Per this discussion on my talk, I have reinstated two noms that I incorrectly removed per the three rules under "Adding requests".

Here is the current text:

Adding requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there are already ten date-specific requests or two nonspecific requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following: If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value. If item 1 doesn't apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points articles outside that date may have. Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the article with the latest date. If the tied articles are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option.

I first moved that piece of instructions in with this edit in July 2008. Archived discussions show that Bencherlite is more correct than I am, but regardless of how we got here, the community should attempt to clarify intent in the current environment (that is, we used to have only five noms, now we have twelve). The history of that section begins here in archives and there is more at Speedy Deletions. Archives show that the intent was to allow for better/more page turnover when a nomination was stale or had little support, but I agreed in those discussions that we should leave a nom up until it needed replacement, or leave it to the delegate/director to interpret. In other words, my memory was incorrect and Bencherlite is right that we had agreed not to remove unless a slot was needed; at the time we had decided that noms meeting these three conditions were only removed when something else replaced them.

So, reading through archives, I am convinced that my removal was incorrect per the history and instructions, my apologies to all, but my current concern is that we are scheduling items with negative points and marginal support; if someone else had wanted the slot earlier, that article had met the 50% oppose much earlier. Are we discouraging nominations by leaving stale nominations or nominations without a significant chance on the page longer than necessary? In the case of Feb 14, it appears the Phallic museum has little chance for Feb 14, and it would have a better slot at using one of the non-specific date slots. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot, discouraging more noms with these instructions that we came up with four years ago, while we have a new environment now? Although I was wrong, I'm wondering if we should revisit. The end result here is that we seem to have exhausted our supply of naval aviators killed in action, and we are disrespecting their families with an emphasis on their date of death (rather than other accomplishments), yet we are running those articles with little support anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Several points in that post...

1. Personally, I think that there is no need (other than obviously wrong nominations e.g. of a non-FA, or IAR cases) to remove someone else's nomination when the page is not full and the date is not scheduled. (Obviously I will be proved wrong now I have said this...) Discussion of rival articles for the same date, for instance, may well be worth continuing. Points and/or levels of support can change (as has happened for both the nominations that you removed, in fact!) and recent months show that "failing" nominations tend to be removed by their nominators for another time without too much difficulty if that's suggested nicely. If they're not, well, delegates can probably sort the wheat from the chaff.

2. We still have a number of aviators (and members of the other armed services, from various countries) killed in action but not yet TFA, so I don't think we're in much danger of running out. More seriously, I also don't remember seeing complaints about the timing of the various TFAs in question at the usual venues, so we may be over-worrying about this point.

3. As for whether concentrating on their day of death is inappropriate, it's an argument but not the only view, as the discussions have shown.

4. As for whether it was appropriate to run Jesse L. Brown, despite the -1 point tally, I think it was (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have done it) because points aren't everything, again as the discussion shows. That is the only article I have scheduled with negative points, I think.

5. If you (or anyone) has views on how the page can be improved or the instructions streamlined, there's a clean talk page below (at the time of writing...). Bencherlite^Talk 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke

Pleasantly surprised to see it scheduled for 16th :) thanks! I've just managed to track down and confirm a PD sketch of Clarke, which I have added to the TFA blurb. Could someone please check this and make sure I've added it correctly? --Errant ^(chat!) 17:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem - our chief weapon is pleasant surprise... pleasant surprise and fear... fear and plesant surprise... Our two weapons are fear and pleasant surprise... and ruthless inefficiency... (etc). (Image placement is fine, thanks.) Bencherlite^Talk 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Instructions streamlined

I suggest to try to simply drop the restriction of only one nomination at a time. What it probably wants to avoid - the dominance of any given editor - can be achieved by polite discussion, I am sure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this. The restriction made sense in an era with fewer slots and when people tended to nominate only their own articles; neither is the case now. We have plenty of space for more nominations and it would make the delegates' lives easier to see a more active page with more pre-selection and vetting of potential TFAs. Bencherlite^Talk 22:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The domination of one editor to the process is not really a factor for people such as Gerda and myself whose nominations have been articles that others have written, especially if we take care to nominate a wide variety of stuff. It makes sense that if people like us are prepared to spend the time to hunt for, clean up, and nominate worthy candidates, that our assistance should be encouraged. It makes the delegates' task a lot easier, imho, if there's a variety of participants and a full slate of nominations. Many of my nominations were articles whose primary authors are no longer with the project. Examples: Tool (band); Battle of Bosworth Field; Hurricane Gustav (2002). I can't guarantee I would resume cleaning up and nominating articles if this rule were changed, but as things stand right now, I won't. The reason I quit suggesting articles was because of this rule; it just got too tedious to have to permanently watch-list the page on the off chance there were any questions about my one nomination. -- Dianna (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see this being something to consider for example three, six or nine months down the road, but am not sure the page is ready for it. First, this is a solution looking for a problem-- we have three delegates now, plus Raul, so they aren't overworked. Second, there is a recent history of ill-prepared nominations of articles a delegate might not have chosen, but more, thirdly, the notion that this "can be achieved by polite discussion" may work for the current audience/participants, but we want the page to work for future potential participants-- if someone new comes along and nominates say three ill-prepared articles, their first foray here might not be positive. Fourth, the page is increasingly oriented towards date relevance, when that should be only one factor-- and the community often nominates for date relevance. The idea that we have to schedule articles around date relevance is popping up more and more ... new nominators would be likely to further that trend, with more than one nom at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just a question of whether the delegates are overworked; the question should be whether wider community input is welcome and desirable. The way I'm reading your remarks is that you think community input is not needed and is not wanted, that your preference would be for the delegates alone to select articles, because people might nominate ill-prepared articles or nominate strictly based on date relevance. Am I understanding you correctly? But these things are no more likely to occur when people nominate multiple articles as when they only nominate one at a time. And as long as points are awarded for date relevance, people will continue to nominate on that basis. -- Dianna (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's how you're "reading [my] remarks", it is incorrect. Note that I said "we want the page to work for future potential participants-- if someone new comes along and nominates say three ill-prepared articles, their first foray here might not be positive". We don't want to have to go tell them they did something wrong, and hope that "polite discussion" will resolve the issue. We want the page to work for potential new participants ... removing a rule that has worked and is working may lead to problems. Getting more participation on this page isn't achieved by having more of the slots taken up by fewer nominators ... it's more likely to happen if they find empty slots when they show up (which was precisely one of my points in the earlier thread about revisiting removal conditions on "Adding requests"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Participation is down sharply over what we had in the fall, when there were lots of nominations on the board and lively discussions that included a lot of different editors. That's what I would like to see return to the page, and I think loosening up the rules a little bit would help achieve that. -- Dianna (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, forgot to say, at my screen resolution (125%) there are five screens full of instructions before I get down to the table where the noms are listed. A huge amount of complex instructions and an awkward complex point system. I am pretty sure new contributors to the page find that more than a little intimidating. -- Dianna (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the complexity of the instructions is off-putting, but having thought about the problems for a number of years, I'm at a loss for an effective way to simplify them and still meet page objectives. Also, I suspect there's an "apples and oranges" issue on the "participation is down ... " because three of the editors who regularly participated are now gone, blocked, or banned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I like to keep things simple and suggest we just try it and see what happens. If a new editor comes along with the mentioned three ill-prepared nominations, I am willing to tell the one to withdraw two of them for the moment and concentrate on improving only one first. - I was ready to nominate a person for TFA on the anniversary of his death, but dropped the idea because we recently had another US politician, - no rule needed. We might trust in people being open for reasonable arguments a bit more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, trusting the current participants says nothing about how future participants might react, and finding no open slots on the page can be as off-putting as the long instructions. If there's an article you want to nom, why not suggest it here and see if someone else noms it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I said "try" when I first suggested, I said "try" again, - it can easily be changed back in case it doesn't work, as the five slots for "no date" were changed back. - I typically don't make others work for me, but will keep your suggestion in mind. - Actually, I suggested something here before, Little Moreton Hall, looks pretty on the Main page right now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Much as I hate to burst your bubble, Gerda, the fact that you suggested it on this talk page wasn't the reason why I ran Little Moreton Hall. "Art, architecture and archaeology" has very few FAs that have yet to appear on the main page, so anything new appearing there is an obvious easy pick for delegates whether someone nominates or mentions it or not.

The importance of date relevance in nominations is another issue, although of course the page was made to appear more skewed towards date-specific nominations when the ratio of specific to non-specific slots was changed from 5:2 to 10:5 to 10:2 over the course of a few months.

Anyway, getting back to the point of this thread: why don't we have a trial period of, say, 3 months for removing the "one per nominator" rule? Any objections to that? Bencherlite^Talk 15:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• That'll be fine with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• As I said earlier, I oppose for now but could support this some months down the road if this page stabilizes/matures. In the meantime, I've offered some alternatives on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• @Bencherlite: Thanks for scheduling! - I didn't say my suggestion was the reason for you scheduling Little Moreton Hall, right? We just arrived at the same thought ;) - I suggested Alexis Bachelot for 22 Feb. Without the rule I could go ahead and get Grand Teton National Park for 26 Feb to the discussion NOW. With the rule, I have to wait until the other one is scheduled, or expect someone else do the work for me. As you are the only one who schedules right now, I support what you think is best for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Timing

There's a good example (Grand Teton National Park) for discussion. Feb 26 is over a month away; why do we need to get it on the page so soon? I could understand bringing articles up sooner if the additional lead time was being used here to check articles relative to the FA standards, but they haven't been at least recently. Scheduling farther out allows time for quality screening, but if that isn't being done, why are we taking up slots so far in advance? (As an aside, there are a couple of things I know need to be checked on the Teton article, and will do so as soon as I have time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to get it on the page soon, but - as you suggested - it gives more time to fix things. With five more open slots and nothing pending, it would not take up space needed for others. - Thanks for looking at this article, - you and hopefully others looking early, that is what is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be more expedient to put the "what needs to be checked" discussion here, and just ask MONGO, who will likely know the answer. Eons ago, it was common for articles like this to be cut-and-pasted from public domain sources; before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written in 2009, many of us (myself included) thought that was OK, and articles with cut-and-paste from public domain sources without quotes even passed FAR. That has since changed, and to my knowledge, none of MONGO's or Mav's current FAs contain same (IIRC, they even went back and addressed old FAs). But, in the FAC, Mongo referred to this version from which work to bring the article to FA status began, which did include old unquoted cut-and-paste public domain text. We need to ask MONGO if all of that was corrected, or if we need to check for close paraphrasing, etc. He'll know if that was addressed ... anyway, I put this here because many older FAs that used USGS or NPS sources (which are public domain) had some unattributed, unquoted cut-and-paste, so we have to watch for that. I'll ping MONGO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looking over the article history, the last remnants of any PD text that might have still existed in the Grand Teton National Park article would have been starting to be eliminated in March 2011, which is when I started the major overhaul of the article. I spent over a year off and on working on the article...the slowish to load diff here shows the article history one edit before I started my work through the most recent edit and aside from perhaps a few sentences, I don't see any similarity in the text, though of course some of the facts are the same. The article expansion was almost 75,000kbs and the only sections the article had in March 2011 that had much to them was the history, geology and fauna which themselves had been altered in the several years from when it might have been pasted in from the National Park Service website...which has also changed a lot since then as the Park Service revamped all their pages in 2009-2011. Here's a snapshot of how the article looked after I made my first edit in March 2011 when I commenced the article rewrite....compared to the page Grand Teton National Park, I see a few similar sentences, but not many. Perhaps I can do a spot check on a dozen PD references used and see if I did any close paraphrasing, but I'm generally cautious about that to begin with.--MONGO 23:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I started thinking in the preparation, the blurb needs trimming - so much could be said! - feel free to do it right there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah...I'll work on a trim on that over the next couple of days.--MONGO 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Points

Sorry, I misread the instructions, in "Promoted between one and two years ago", "one year" seems to mean "12 months", not "the previous year", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, otherwise every 2012 FA would get a point as the clock turned to 1st January 2013, regardless of whether the promotion date was January 2012 or December 2012, which would be silly. Bencherlite^Talk 13:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

and you still need those points? and the recently approved FAs - in hopefully good condition - need to be "punished"? silly immature questions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Using a sound in a TFA blurb

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2013 - for First inauguration of Barack Obama, instead of an image, I've used the audio clip from the article of Obama being sworn in by John Roberts during the ceremony. You may remember that Roberts didn't follow the precise constitutional wording and so it was redone later as a precaution, as the blurb mentions. (The clip happens to be a Featured Sound - remember them?!) Thoughts on whether this is a good or a bad idea are welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure this has been done before, so it should be fine to happen again. GRAPPLE X 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• DYK's done it before (I think), so I have no issue. Yeah, I remember featured sounds... (Signpost coverage here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DYK's done it before using {{DYK listen}} (but not very often, probably no more than 6 or 7 times to judge from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DYK listen). Bencherlite^Talk 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There we go. OTD seems to have used it a bit as well. I don't see any issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I really need to get round to writing "Wikipedia:Today's Featured Article's unusual moments" (to record the odd occasion when TFA has run two articles in one day, or when articles have appeared twice, or when non-FAs have trespassed into the TFA slot, or when sounds have been used instead of images...). Bencherlite^Talk 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Don't forget the one that appeared two days in a row! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think this is a great idea - thanks for trying it out. Our media handling has improved a lot in the last year or so, and it'll be interesting to see what the reader response is. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've done it several times before. (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 15, 2010, for example). I've rewritten the blurb to match the format used previously. Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I'll use that technique next time - if there is a next time! Bencherlite^Talk 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical question

I want to nominate ? (film) for TFA on 31 March, it's debut. During the FAC an editor told me that he could not open the page using Google Chrome, and was only able to review after using an HTML escape (i.e. %3F). Does anyone else have this issue? How can we fix it to make sure people can read the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking to ? (film) (appropriately piped) from the mainpage would seem to resolve that particular problem - we can make sure the inbound link presented to the readers uses the encoded form. I don't have Chrome to hand, but I'll check tonight and see what happens. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can read the article using Chrome with no apparent problems. Crisco's original link worked for me, too. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks everyone. Kinda confused as I never had any problems with it (although the page views tool hates the film, it seems...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• To quickly confirm this, reading the article in Chrome (well, Chromium 22.0) works fine, but trying to load the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?_(film) just falls back to the main page. Interestingly, MediaWiki seems to convert the wikitext ? into %3F in the rendered page, so it's only links in from outside Wikipedia that would have the problem. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• *deer meet headlights* So essentially an in-wiki link should be fine, but for external links we need to use %3F? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lutosławski centenary

Greetings. I originally posted this at Raul654's talk page, but he has been off-wiki, and so I am posting here for input in his absence. I know the rule is generally that no featured article should appear on the main page more than once. But it is Witold Lutosławski's centenary on Jan 25: although that article was on the main page on November 6, 2005, that was over seven years ago, the article is still featured, and I, its primary author, am still around to "look after" it. What do you think - is it worth a nomination? Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article looks to be in need of some in-line referencing. I doubt it would survive long on the main page before some maintenance tags were added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. We had that at discussion at FAR. I thought the result was a ridiculous overuse of footnotes, so I did this, which was a huge improvement. It has been deemed an acceptable compromise in discussions subsequently, particularly since the hard-to-read version with 103 footnotes is readily available for reference. Since no-one has said "no", I am going ahead with a nomination in the spirit of WP:IAR, because I think putting the article on the front page on the centenary would be a significant feather in Wikipedia's cap. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No one needs to say no when the instructions are clear; please remove the request. Further, I agree with Crisco on the likely outcome of featuring that sort of undersourcing on the mainpage, and submit that a 2007 FAR (five years old) is of little use here. I suggest a new FAR might be in order to review the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Based on the note at the top of the page, it seems that they've done non-standard referencing similar to Great Fire of London (which I had tried to tag but was reverted, about four months back) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Crisco. I think you're referring to a line in the article that mentions four different books, no page nos? Unless I'm missing something else, that does not meet FA citation requirements (we're asking our readers to read four books to verify text?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Agree, doesn't match the criteria and should be footnoted / given page numbers. Just pointing out that it's not the only one with... suboptimal... referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Raul doesn't seem to be jumping at the opportunity to refeature this. In the meantime, I have scheduled something that is not date-centric for 25th Jan, rather than wait further, but of course without prejudice to Raul's final decision; I'll let Raul know. Bencherlite^Talk 15:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Icelandic Phallological Museum on April Fools' Day?

I think this would be a good article to save for April Fools. Raul654 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was brought up several times. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why is this being nominated here? Raul654 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sandy liked the idea when it was mentioned, and frankly I've had enough of people finding reasons why it shouldn't be run on a specific date - hence the non-specific date nomination. Prioryman (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I'm going to have to disagree with Sandy. I think this could be a fantastic April Fool's article and I really would like to save it for that purpose. (Note: I'm not saying it's guaranteed to run on that day, but so far it's my favorite. If it doesn't run on that day, we can always run it on another day.) Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The gist of Sandy's point (if I remember correctly) was that Wikipedia's main page is already criticised for it's... phallocentrism... on 1 April. In other words, too many dick jokes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, and (if you'll forgive the pun) there's been too much dicking around with this article's nomination for me to favour nominating it for 1 April. I'm concerned that, as with the last time this was nominated, someone will try to bump it out of the slot. Prioryman (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Another argument, if I remember it right, was that this is a serious museum, not what people expect on 1 April, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That it is intended as a serious article is not entirely relevant, since other FAs used on April Fools are typically also serious (albeit lend themselves to funny blurbs). Ima Hogg, Museum of Bad Art, etc. My point was that, considering the criticism that occurred in the last two years (resulting more from problems/abuse at DYK entries, but spilling over to affect perception of TFA's April Fools' entry), we can do better than penis jokes, and we have done better than penis jokes in the past.

Could we move this whole April Fools' discussion to talk here so it doesn't sidetrack this nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a link back at the original discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this as on par with Museum of Bad Art - a museum of things that most people will not expect to exist. In fact, I'm hoping for comments along those lines. Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with points raised by Raul654 (talk · contribs) but also those raised above on this talk page and back at the discussion by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs). There's a risk that this article will be subsumed to something else for April Fool's, and thus not run at all on the Main Page for any date at all — which would be a shame for an article of such high quality that also is available to readers in twenty (20) languages. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly that it should run sometime soon, if not selected for April Fool. I don't think it's going to be allowed to simply disappear from view without being selected. The only thing that is stopping me from scheduling it for 29th January (the next available slot at the time of writing) is Raul's suggestion that we save it for 1st April. Bencherlite^Talk 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, thanks very much, Bencherlite (talk · contribs), for this helpful reply! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any support (apart from Raul) for the article to run on 1st April. I think that pretty much means the idea isn't going anywhere; shall we move on and consider when the article should run? Prioryman (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• First open spot, I guess. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like that's still 29th January... Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, hope Bencherlite sees this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, no. I was serious when I said I wanted to hold off on running this article until April Fools - at least until I have a chance to survey the options. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives for April Fools

Shall we have a think about some alternatives, to see whether the IPM is the best we can manage? Like Sandy, I'm not keen on this running on 1st April (although I think it should run soon) essentially for the reasons she gives. I'll leave a message at WT:FAC and T:MP inviting comments; if anyone else can think of other venues to notify, please do so. Bencherlite^Talk 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If the past few years have been any indication, there's always going to be criticism of what's placed on the main page, regardless of whether or not we try to be politically correct.--WaltCip (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an April Fools suggestion page somewhere-- I can never find it. In past years, we found that if we geared up by mid-February, we could generate an FA in time for April Fools, from scratch. I don't know if we have the number/caliber of editors these days to pull off another Ima Hogg, which was a collaboration of experienced FA writers, but it would be fun and a wonderful way to re-energize FAC. That April Fools page I can never find probably has some article suggestions. Long ago, The Fat Man suggested we take on Maggot cheese. Now that many of us have JSTOR access, I wonder if it's doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Were you thinking of Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article, perhaps? The general discussion Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page is a little light on recent thoughts but the DYK subpage is at work already. Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the one! Clicking on the archive links in the infobox brings up older sample suggestions. I 'spose the med editors could bring male lactation up to standard fairly quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Messages left at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. I have made a suggestion below; if someone else comes up with a better existing FA, or can write a better April Fool FA between now and scheduling time, so much the better. My only purpose was to set the ball rolling and see if there was something that would be better than the IPM, even if it wasn't the final selection, so that the IPM could be scheduled at will. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It seems that WaltCip (talk · contribs) has made the wisest comment on this page so far! ;) — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am currently working on getting Sacred Cod of Massachusetts up to FA status. I am working it through it's last Peer Review and was hoping to get it nominated for FA in time for this years April Fools. School really got in my way over the past few months, so I am a little behind where I want to be in this process, but if it doesn't get through for this years April Fools, I am hoping it will be ready for next years.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just put Sacred Cod up at FAC.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Exploding head syndrome - I think that this would make one of the best April Fool's Main Pages of all time. Its not an FA now, but if people want to work on it, I think we may be able to get it up to FA status by April. Remember (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per my comments a couple of years ago when someone suggested Tarrare, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of running medical articles for laughs. EHS is a genuine medical condition, and sufferers will quite rightly take offense at the idea that Wikipedia is treating it as a joke. If you want a non-FA that's work-uppable, might I point you in the direction of Fox tossing? – iridescent 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Considering I actually suffer from EHS and know what it is like, I don't think people will get offended. It's the name that is ridiculous, not the condition. But if people don't want to promote this, that is fine. Remember (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd be happy with Exploding Heads or the Piece of Cod that Passeth All Understanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Toledo War

The Toledo War was 'fought' in the United States between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan in 1835 and 1836. They tussled over a five-to-eight-mile-wide (8 to 13 km) strip of land mainly because few understood the geography of the Great Lakes, (inaccurate 18th-century map pictured) and both governments thought the land was theirs. The conflict began with political maneuvering, as Ohio used the dispute to block Michigan's bid for statehood, before moving into legislating the other into capitulating. When these failed, their militias were mobilized to taunt each other across the Maumee River. In the one military confrontation, Michigan militiamen fired shots into the air and captured some surveyors. The war's only casualty was a sheriff stabbed with a penknife. Eventually, the American Congress proposed that Michigan would receive statehood and the completely undeveloped Upper Peninsula in exchange for the strip. Michigan accepted the deal in the "Frost-bitten Convention" of December 1836, but it took 137 years and the Supreme Court of the United States to address the last remaining dispute. Both sides won, to some extent, as the Upper Peninsula was apparently exceedingly valuable, though occasionally volatile. The entirely uninvolved Wisconsin, on the other hand, was the real loser, as the Upper Peninsula would otherwise probably have become part of that state. Today, the Toledo War is still fought, albeit on a contracted annual basis. (Full article...)

OK, so this would be the American civil war that nobody talks about, would it, because it sounds more like a French farce? What do we think of this as a TFA for 1st April? Bencherlite^Talk 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's some potential in there, but methinks your tongue-in-cheek could be accessorized by someone on par with The Fat Man :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• I genuinely laughed at this blurb. Support for April 1st 2013 TFA.--WaltCip (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support—if there's room, we probably could add something about the Michigan–Ohio State rivalry that's grown out of this; in effect the Toledo War is still refought every fall on the football field. The History Channel's special, How the States Got Their Shapes opened with the Michigan–Ohio State game as a backdrop to the first segment on how Michigan got its shape. Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you can get something into the article about this, then it'd be great to have it in the blurb if it runs. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, some stuff about the rivalry was taken out in this edit last year, without explanation, which may give you a starting point. Bencherlite^Talk 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Which I was able to restore, and expand upon with a citation to the episode of the TV show. Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I added a bit about it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - ahaha, people here still talk about this. Michigan won, because who wants Toledo today anyway? ;-) Also those commenting here might be interested in the BJAODN Upper Peninsula War. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose needs some remedial work before it's fit for main page, per its entry at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006. If improved, switch to weak support. I'd prefer something US-centric, to something penis-centric, but a more worldview-compliant joke would be better on a high profile date like this. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the last 2 or 3 were British. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • 2007 George Washington (inventor); 2008 Ima Hogg; 2009 Museum of Bad Art; 2010 Wife selling; 2011 Cock Lane ghost; 2012 Pigeon photography. So 3 USA articles, a couple from England and one German invention. Bencherlite^Talk 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Alright, thanks. Still neutral on this if that's the case... blurb could be made funnier / more exaggerated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I've fixed the only thing identified as wrong on Dweller's page. [1] Suggestions for making the blurb funnier would be appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Toledo War raged between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, in the United States, beginning in 1835. The two began by tussling over a five-to-eight-mile-wide (8 to 13 km) strip because both sides misunderstood their local geography (inaccurate 18th-century map pictured). Thus, both governments thought the land was theirs. Ohio used the dispute to block Michigan's bid for recognition, and moved to use legislation to bring the other to its knees. When these failed, their militias taunted each other across the Maumee River. The only military confrontation saw Michigan militiamen shoot at the clouds and capture some surveyors. The war's only casualty was a man stabbed with a penknife. The American Congress proposed that Michigan could have a large unexplored forest in exchange for the strip. At the "Frost-bitten Convention" in December 1836, Michigan accepted the deal, but it took 137 years and a Supreme Court ruling to address their last remaining dispute. Today, the Toledo War continues to be fought, albeit on a contracted annual basis. (Full article...)

• Something like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

? (film)

?

(Full article...)

Possibly the most minimalist TFA ever... Prioryman (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Some other suggestions

These are all "old" FAs, that look reasonably good.

From the "not what you expect it to be" category:

• Pixies

Some subjective inherent humour in name:

• Kingdom of Mysore

Mentions "fool"ery:

• Only Fools and Horses (but needs remedial work)

Inherently ridiculous:

• Scotland national football team (sorry, Brit joke)

Btw, can I nominate Witchfinder General (film) for next Halloween, while we're at it, as well as Guy Fawkes Night for next Nov 5?

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am working on an article on Grave robbery (it's in my user space so don't bother with the present article). I can guarantee you it will be chock-full of all kinds of unbelievable facts. Whether or not it'll be suitable for 1 April will be anyone's guess. Parrot of Doom 19:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning to do an article on corpse medicine for Halloween, so watch this space. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It took forever to get the actual article Circle jerk into Wikipedia - a female did it. So come on, it IS the funniest thing in all patriarchy, so you gotta do SOMETHING with it! (Assuming it hasn't been done multiple times already. CarolMooreDC 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a frat house? I thought it was an encyclopedia. And a female what? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Or was that a suggestion to put a disambiguation page up as today's featured article on April 1? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did notice at least one, and perhaps more, unintended puns(?) in my comment. (Hmm, Humor article doesn't mention puns, so I just added; see how long it lasts.)

I'm lost when wikipedia doesn't give me the answers. Hmmm... maybe an April Fools story could be based on someone's reliance on wikipedia.

But seriously, where do the article submissions get previewed and decided on? Maybe I'll do one NOT related to male anatomy or sexual practices. I know I did a popular one on a high profile nut job 10 years ago that resulted in her sending me a few hundred hate messages, so I must have done something right :-) But maybe that's vs. BLP and we have to keep it to non-BLPs. CarolMooreDC 16:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• If y'all can live with the fact that the principal author won't lift a finger to revert vandalism and "improvements" on the day so someone else will need to watchlist it, one of the most peculiar articles on the entire 'pedia is still available. The sentence "Once shaved, the drunken bear would be fitted with padded artificial breasts, and dressed in women's clothing and a wig" is still IMO one of the finest lines on Wikipedia. – iridescent 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)