Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The requests page is currently accepting nominations from February 23 to March 24.

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

Potential requests for dates before February 21, 2017, can be entered below.


Date Article Reason Primary author(s) Added by (if different)
Mar. 3 R. V. C. Bodley Why Freikorpp
Mar. 9 Richie Farmer Why Acdixon
April 11 Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories Why Peacemaker67
April 23 Stanley Price Weir Why Peacemaker67
May 9 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger Why Peacemaker67
June 20 Schmerber v. California Why Notecardforfree
June 23 June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina Why Peacemaker67
June 24 Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song) Why Efe SSTflyer
July 11 Satoru Iwata Why Cyclonebiskit
September 29 Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 Why Crum375 SSTflyer
October 22 2006 Subway 500 Why Z105space
November 25 Killer Instinct Gold Why Czar


Enthiran TFA[edit]

@WP:TFA coordinators: Enthiran is currently at 1 October for its TFA as the date signifies the 5th anniversary of the film's release. But, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is at TFA for 20 October and the date signifies the 20th anniversary of its release. In this case, are these two appearing close together? If so, please suggest the course of action that should be taken. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

At any cost, the recently promoted DDLJ will not miss being TFA on Oct 20 (its 20th anniversary). If Enthiran should be delayed (possibly for Rajini's birthday in 2016) then its fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but "at any cost" doesn't work around here; there are other factors to consider. I'm a bit concerned that, as well as these two Indian films, we have Kareena Kapoor nominated for 21 September, as well as a British film for 24 September. That's quite a concentration of media-related TFAs – four within 30 days. I'll go along with whatever Chris decides for October, but I think we can just about allow these, provided there's a bit of a hiatus in similar nominations during the next month or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, we'll need to run fewer cinema articles for a bit. We've already had an overabundance of them. Personally I'd avoid running Enthiran for now. For me, a fifth anniversary just doesn't cancel out the fact that we'd have three Indian cinema articles in two months if we ran the article. That's over-representation, considering how many other topics we have a backlog of. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess that would eliminate Shah Rukh Khan for his 50th birthday on 2 November, but I don't think that was going to happen anyway due to Warren G. Harding. If we had to choose, I think most people would pick Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge over both Enthiran and Kareena Kapoor, but I could be mistaken. BollyJeff | talk 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita TFA date[edit]

Why is this scheduled for 19 Sep? That date is of no connection I know of. Can we get it changed to Canadian or American Thanksgiving?

ty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This message was sent to my talkpage and I've answered it there. Basically, the connection between Thanksgiving and Curcubita isn't enough to form a significant date relation. None of the three FA nominating editors have suggested or requested it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That may be about the three editors, but I have to disagree. Cucurbita, especially pumpkins, are strongly related to the Autumn season, especially Halloween and the two Thanksgivings.
User:Brianboulton Now you have the FA nominator and most-often editor requesting such a rescheduling. HalfGig talk 11:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
When this article was nominated at FAC, in January, its introduction made no mention of any relevance to Thanksgivings Day, which is barely mentioned in the text, or of other relevant dates. Nor could I see any talkpage guidance on dates from you or anyone else, so it's unsurprising that the association wasn't picked up when I scheduled this; such traditions don't automatically cross the Atlantic. I would have appreciated a somewhat politer request and explanation from you or the anonymous editor that began this thread, but that may be too much to expect. Changing a TFA once it is within the system is a tiresome and time-consuming process, not just a couple of clicks, but I will do the necessary, in the interests of Anglo-American goodwill (!) Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Note: I can't guarantee that this will be selected as TFA on any of the claimed relevant dates; all I'll be doing at the moment is replacing it in the 19 September slot. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. If none of those dates work out, anytime in Oct-Nov is fine with me. HalfGig talk 16:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I also support a scheduling for one of the Thanksgiving occasions unless there are superior alternatives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Squashes, pumpkins and gourds are grown, consumed and used in various ways around the world. To single out one north American festival as the particular reason for running an article on a particular date would be rather unbalanced. BencherliteTalk 15:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a very weak excuse and we could both find cases on TFA where that "rule" was not enforced, but I also see that it would be pointless to continue this discussion for very obvious reasons. HalfGig talk 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As another of the three FA nominators (the third being User:Chiswick Chap, I saw this discussion rather late, and was about to support the request, but see that it indeed appears to be pointless to continue the discussion in view of the opposition above. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the difficulty, the reasoning, or the late intervention - a festival is as good a date as any, and Thanksgiving is a major festival strongly associated with the genus, but any date is fine with me and I'm not minded to argue. I hope this article, which has been very carefully prepared, will appear on the front page at a convenient date agreeable to everyone in the not too distant future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the article from its random date, so it's now up to you, or someone, to nominate the article through the WP:TFAR process for a particular date of your choice, with an appropriate rationale for this date. It won't find its way to the front page on its own. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I've no strong opinions, but have started a placeholder TFAR here and would suggest this discussion be better off taking place there. ‑ iridescent 16:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Run the thing on Halloween. Pumpkins have an obvious connection with the date, it's squarely in the middle of the northern harvesting season for most of the others, and it might avoid the annual argument. ‑ iridescent 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
With a different image please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Good suggestion, perhaps something like this image. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice! Or this? Anyway, it would have to be in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There are precedents for using a TFA image which isn't in the article (I can't think of one but I know they exist); at the tiny size {{TFAIMAGE}} produces, sometimes none of the images currently in use in the article are suitable. As long as the image is clearly relevant—which any picture of a pumpkin, squash or gourd obviously would be—nobody except the "process for process's sake" cranks are going to complain. This, this and this are all quite visually striking at mainpage size. ‑ iridescent 19:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I like mini pumpkins and pumpkin pile if we go with Halloween, or if another date, the original lead photo. Once we agree on an image, we can nominate at TFAR as Brian suggests. HalfGig talk 14:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Either photo is fine with me (coin toss?). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Gerda Arendt, User:Iridescent, User:Chiswick Chap, do you have a preference? HalfGig talk 16:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see it's already on the page at TFAR. I'll comment there. HalfGig talk 16:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Schmerber v. California TFA date[edit]

I noticed that Schmerber v. California has been scheduled to appear on the main page on December 20, 2015. However, I previously made a request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending to schedule the article for June 20, 2016, which would be the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the case. Is there any chance we can reschedule the appearance on the main page from December 20, 2015 to June 20, 2016? I am pinging the TFA coordinators Brianboulton, Crisco 1492, and Dank. Thank you in advance for your help with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I was considering either Schmerber or Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (it's been a long time since we've had a law article run), but decided to schedule Schmerber as Regents would work best during Black History Month. However, I don't mind changing to an article on a different subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Chris, thanks so much for your flexibility with this. If you are looking for another SCOTUS case to run as a potential TFA candidate, you may also want to consider Washington v. Texas, which apparently has not appeared on the main page. In any event, thanks so much for all your hard work making TFA run smoothly! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to delay it for now. We don't get many law articles at TFA, so running three in six months would deplete our stock too quickly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)