Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

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

The requests page is currently accepting nominations from September 7 to October 7.

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 September 6, 2017, can be entered below.

viewedithistorywatch

Date Article Reason Primary author(s) Added by (if different)
September 28 Norman Conquest of England Why Ealdgyth Hawkeye7
September 29 Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 Why Crum375 SSTflyer
October 1 A Streetcar Named Marge Why Scorpion0422
October 7 Cape Feare Why Maitch
October 14 Battle of Hastings Why Ealdgyth Hawkeye7
October 31 Drowned God Why Torchiest
November 3 William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 Why Wehwalt
November 6 From The Doctor to my son Thomas Why Cirt
November 25 Killer Instinct Gold Why Czar
November 28 Enrico Fermi Why Hawkeye7 and others Colonel Wilhelm Klink
December 4 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service Why Nick-D
January 9 Walking Liberty half dollar Why Wehwalt
January 10 Kalki Koechlin Why Numerounovedant Gerda Arendt
January 17 Standing Liberty quarter Why Wehwalt
February 5 SMS Körös Why Peacemaker67
March 1 Hector Waller Why Ian Rose
March 13 Spanish conquest of Petén Why Simon Burchell
March 21 Blast Corps Why Czar
April 11 Margaret Lea Houston Why Maile66
April 13 Fez (video game) Why Czar
April 21 George Mason Why Wehwalt
May 4 Battle of the Coral Sea Why Cla68 and others Dank (per Hawkeye7)
May 20 Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) Why TonyTheTiger
May 28 Menacer Why Czar
June 12 Roy Phillipps Why Ian Rose
July 28 Yugoslav monitor Sava Why Peacemaker67


A different kind of request[edit]

Hopefully I'm not butting in, but I could use some help with the April Fool's edition of TFL. I've been working on trying to make this blurb funny and am discovering that I am just not very good at it. There was one good suggestion at TFL talk for the intro, and a couple of the sentences with baseball stats and quotes are humerous (to me anyway), but some of the sentences are admittedly messy and the blurb as a whole doesn't flow that well in comparison to what I've seen at TFA over the years. Can anyone with knowledge of how to write a funny-but-true blurb please offer some assistance? Thanks to anyone who is interested in helping. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Dying is easy, comedy is hard." (Peter O’Toole in My Favorite Year). Jimfbleak did a good job with the April 1 TFA last year and Cliftonian did a good job this year. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [Repinging Jimfbleak and Cliftonian in case that didn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)]

2017 April Fool TFA[edit]

I've posted at Talk:Main_Page#Today.27s_featured_article_.281_April.29. Please comment there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you drawing our attention to? Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian, Chris and I would like to get more input on what to do next April 1, but we seem to be agreed among ourselves that we'd prefer to treat it like any other day. Brian has been looking at a bunch of articles with April 1 as an anniversary date that we haven't been able to run. I think I've got a handle on what goes wrong every April 1, and we can talk about that if you want to, but I'm not sure if the question of exactly what is going wrong is relevant ... what's important is that we have a one-day-a-year outlier where the normal discussion processes (that work brilliantly every other day) don't work and various people are shocked by the results and various people get their feelings hurt. One person threatened to report us to the WMF, and there's another guy who doesn't seem to be talking to me any more. This needs to stop. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That (although "one-day-a-year outlier" is forgetting the equal amount of petty squabbling and hurt feelings that take place every Halloween). It's ridiculous that something supposedly an academic project degenerates into unfunny attempts at deception every year just because twelve years ago Raul had an argument with Bishonen over whether European toilet paper holder was appropriate as a TFA and came to the current arrangement as a compromise. Abolish April Fools, abolish Christmas, abolish Halloween and abolish Easter; the liturgical calendar approach to scheduling has never had any obvious benefit and just means legitimate articles whose significant anniversaries happen to fall on those dates are penalized. Ironically, the only section of the Main Page which ever comes out of AFD with any credit is the cesspit that is ITN, who to their credit have long refused to take part in the invariably lame and usually faintly offensive attempts to be funny. ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I take it, then, that you objected to POTD featuring a self-portrait of a yawning man with a serious blurb? An image that even the Wikipedia Facebook page ran? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Dank, above, I'm not particularly seeking any further input on what to do next 1 April. In my view the foolery has gone on long enough with no discernible benefit to anyone. My proposal is that we run one of the six existing 1 April date-related FAs that we have on file – which one will depend partly on what else is nominated for around that date. They cover a reasonable range: MilHist (2), US History, UK Geography, Indonesian film and an X-files episode. I don't see how the April Fool aficionados can possible object – they've had it their way for years, and it's time that one or other other of these worthy articles was given a chance to run. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Further, regarding the "April Fools' Day main page" in general, I think that the aforementioned aficionados have dropped the ball enough times to exhaust the community's patience (particularly at DYK). Even when executed flawlessly, the concept was a compromise between those who wished to maintain our normal standards and those who preferred sheer pandemonium. Given that any deviation from the former requires consensus, the onus lay firmly on the April foolery's advocates to adhere to the established parameters (which were quite generous, in my view). This has occurred in some instances (particularly at TFA), but as time has progressed, the metaphorical camel has pushed its way in. Enough is enough. —David Levy 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in this idea, but think it needs consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It does need consensus, and my understanding of the TFA coord job is that Chris, Brian and I will be the ones to judge what that consensus is ... taking into account all opinions and the strength of arguments. So far, the consensus leans toward discontinuing April Fool's Day at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
IMO. - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The main mistake with the 2016 April 1 TFA was that it featured a misleading blurb, unlike the TFAs of previous years, which featured unusual subjects with a serious blurb. April Fool's TFA does not need to be "discontinued"; although we fuck-uped this year, there is nothing wrong with featuring FAs about unusual topics on April 1, provided that the blurb used was not misleading. SSTflyer 14:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I really do see consensus not to attempt comedy in future April 1 TFAs, because the people who think they're on the "pro" side seem to generally be misjudging the situation ... they don't share the same position, they have a series of mutually incompatible positions, depending on where each person draws the line. One person thinks a certain attempt at misdirection or deception is "funny"; other people call it (quoting) "flat-out lies" or "sophomoric" or "not based on WP policy" (i.e., a policy violation), etc. I reject the position that a person is in some kind of position of moral superiority if their humor involves text which is arguably correct but that the reader will probably misunderstand at first (that the intention is for the reader to misunderstand), whereas someone else who says something false is a "liar" ... even when the context is clearly marked as nonserious. (And there's the rub, of course, the general Wikipedian rejection of disclaimers of all sorts made everyone reject the approach of simply being clear with readers that they shouldn't take the April 1 stuff seriously, so of course I sympathize with concerns that readers might have been misled.) In a nutshell: we have a yearly debate with roughly equal numbers on both sides, except that one of the sides isn't one "side", they just think they are ... they're all in favor of "humor", but there's no evidence that they all have the same ideas about what's funny or about what's offensive. I'm speaking only for myself, I'm don't know if Brian and Chris analyze it the same way, but I know that Brian is just as adamant as I am, that Chris is at least going along with us, and that AFAIK the TFA community is still looking to the three of us to make initial calls like these (as long as we solicit input and we're willing to explain our thinking). - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of losing the attempts at humor for 1 April. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No need to chase for something funny, - if it's there and obvious, fine, if not, treat like any other day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It would probably be worthwhile the TFA delegates adding {{historical}} markers to WP:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article, to save effort for anyone who's planning on creating a joke nomination. It's clear from the comments at WP:Requests for comment/April Fools' 2 that people assume that TFA is planning to run another "comedy" blurb next year and that that will set the tone for the rest of the main page. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know they had a separate section devoted to TFAs there; thanks for that. I'll go point people to this discussion, but encourage them to ignore it while they're voting :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)