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 10 to March 12.

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 9, 2018, can be entered below.


Date Article Reason Primary author(s) Added by (if different)
February 16 Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward Why Famous Hobo
February 27 Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman Why KAVEBEAR
March 1 Hector Waller Why Ian Rose
March 3 R. V. C. Bodley Why Freikorp
March 9 "Mothers of the Disappeared" Why Melicans, Y2kcrazyjoker4 Dream out loud
March 11-14 Eta Carinae Why Lithopsian, Casliber
March 13 Spanish conquest of Petén Why Simon Burchell
March 21 Blast Corps Why Czar
April 1 Nominative determinism Why Edwininlondon No such user
April 6 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) Why Peacemaker67
April 11 Margaret Lea Houston Why Maile66
April 13 Fez (video game) Why Czar
April 14 Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce) Why Ceoil, KafkaLiz Gerda Arendt
April 21 George Mason Why Wehwalt
April 26 Heffernan v. City of Paterson Why Wugapodes Gerda Arendt
April 28 Thomas Crisp Why Jackyd101 Cas Liber
April 28 Gudovac massacre Why 23 editor Peacemaker67
May 4 Battle of the Coral Sea Why Cla68 and others Dank (per Hawkeye7)
May 8 Myst III: Exile Why David Fuchs Cas Liber
May 20 Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) Why TonyTheTiger
May 21 OK Computer Why Brandt Luke Zorn and others
May 24 U.S. Route 113 Why Viridiscalculus
May 28 Menacer Why Czar
June 12 Roy Phillipps Why Ian Rose
June 14 The Last of Us Why Rhain
June 23 June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina Why Peacemaker67
July 28 Yugoslav monitor Sava Why Peacemaker67
August 4 Rare Replay Why Czar
August 31 Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan Why Hurricanehink
September 25-27 Halo 3 Why David Fuchs Casliber
September 28 Myst IV: Revelation Why David Fuchs Casliber
October 2-10 1926 World Series Why Nishkid64
October 4 Dave Gallaher Why Shudde
October 17 Interstate 69 in Michigan Why Imzadi1979
October 26 Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song) Why Freikorp
November 21 Interstate 96 Why Imzadi1979 Dank

WT:FAC#New Featured Article coordinators[edit]

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about process[edit]

I see from the thread above we apparently have new FA (and TFA coords?). I was gone for a couple of weeks and missed the action. Anyway, I have a question about process (which is maybe better on an another page - if so anyone can move it). On Dec. 7th a message was left on my page that an article I wrote and brought to FAC was scheduled for TFA, [1]. As a person who normally runs as fast as I can from having an article selected for TFA, I'm more than a little surprised to find myself here right now, but I thought it was a good choice and was happy about it. Then, a complaint was brought to the scheduler's page and another article chosen instead. My question is this: what process is optimal? Discuss with an individual scheduler or open a discussion here or on another discussion page that's open to the community? Furthermore, given this particular article, I have concerns that apparently we are bound to follow a liturgical calendar in terms of scheduling (had I known, I would never have written this article!). Wikipedia is secular and I believe, strongly, that it must stay that way. But that's just opinion and soapboxing, my biggest concern is the issue of process. Personally, I don't care whether the article runs or not, and there were other reasons involved, but again, I'm worried about the process and I'm worried to hear we're bound to follow a liturgical calendar. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. Annunciation Day is March 25 on the liturgical calendar
  2. "Pregnancy takes more than a few days" (i.e. focusing on the link between Annunciation and Christmas)
  3. We had already run Migration of the Serbs and Vincent van Gogh this month
The first point was noticed, but I didn't consider the link to Lady Day to be particularly strong as an argument (that being said, I'm a Canadian so that may have influenced my understanding of it). The second was a bit stronger, but still (I thought) an acceptable situation; one cannot give birth to a child without becoming pregnant first, after all, and as we have nothing related to the Nativity or to more secular Christmas celebrations the Annunciation had the strongest link. It was the third argument that ultimately convinced me to reschedule; though I didn't think it an issue, three visual arts articles in one month, with another on the way for January, is indeed a lot for such an underpopulated category. Victoria's general reluctance to have articles scheduled for TFA in the past did cross my mind as well.
Regarding the issue of process, I will recuse myself for now. I'll probably weigh in later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(It's slightly ironic to be accused of pushing for a liturgical calendar approach, since I was the one whose needling of Raul and Bencherlite eventually led to the liturgical calendar approach being dropped, and "date relevance points" no longer being a thing.) I agree with Crisco here; running the Annunciation three months away from the Feast of the Annunciation will raise eyebrows but isn't insurmountable, but with three other painting articles already running in quick succession (Migration has already run, Hope will only be relevant on 19 January, and it makes sense to run VVG quickly before someone publishes a new biography and it has to change again), it would need a very strong reason to run a fourth painting article given how quickly the category is being burned off. (There are 35 articles in WP:FANMP#Art, architecture, and archaeology, but the figure is deceptive as eight of them are on the same artist so need to be kept well separated.) ‑ Iridescent 11:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the reasons for the deselection - I agree with those reasons and have said so repeatedly. I do question the process. Gerda stated on my page the Annunciation can only run in March (or something to that effect) and even went so far as to put in a request here for that month on my behalf - which I don't want. If a mistake in scheduling is made, as apparently was done in this instance, should it be brought directly to the scheduler's user page or brought here or to another TFA page? I'm not asking because I'm annoyed that an article I wrote has been scheduled, I'm asking the schedulers what they'd prefer and I'm asking where it's optimal for these types of decisions to be made. I'm asking because if the schedulers prefer issues be brought here, it's best to get that sorted so people know. Scheduling TFAs is a really high stress job; we seem to have burned out all of the schedulers and I'd for one prefer that we all live with the scheduling without making complaints. So, to be clear, this is not a complaint - it's a request for a process clarification. And clearly it can be ignored if the schedulers so please. Victoria (tk) 12:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
To try to clarify: I don't know if it's SOP to take up issues with a scheduling decision on the scheduler's page - I have none of those pages on watch. What concerns me, after noticing this, is if editor X is successful in bringing a protest directly to the scheduler, does that open the door for editors Y and Z to do the same? If so, are the coords ok with that? Victoria (tk) 12:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it—although this may have changed with Brian's retirement—the delegates don't form a triumvirate, but take turns each having responsibility for a single month, so raising issues either on that month's delegate's talkpage, or on WT:TFA, should have the same effect. (I recognise the hypocrisy here, having bawled at Crisco at great length for scheduling three high-traffic TFAs by me in quick succession earlier this year, but it does need to be reiterated that WP:OWN still applies at TFA; the moment it gets that star, it's effectively handed over to the delegates to do as they see fit, and all the author can do is make suggestions as to which dates would or wouldn't be appropriate.) ‑ Iridescent 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Process: if an article was requested on WP:TFAR and had a community discussion, I'd think the proper way would be to discuss its scheduling here. The article in question was, however, selected without a request by Crisco, which is common and normal, therefore I addressed him, for keeping things simple.
Pending list: I did not request the article for 25 March (which I couldn't as requests go only to end of January). I merely put in on the pending list, where dates can be coordinated for a year in advance, to see conflicts about a given date early. I believe that 25 March would be the best day (not the only one) for the article, but removed the entry as soon as I noticed that you don't agree, Victoria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

TFA scheduling isn't a high-stress job, no one has been burned out by the job for years, and generally, people are happy when their articles show up at TFA. Iri, yes, questions should be directed either to the talk page of the coord who scheduled a TFA or to this page or WT:TFA ... it's all good, we'll see it. I don't think anyone's out of line for asking, for instance, how WP:TFAP are WP:TFAR are supposed to work ... I wonder myself sometimes. But Chris and I think it's only fair to allow Jim and Mike a little time to get familiar with the job before we all tackle any big questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Won't ask any more questions. I did not know that comments/protests/complaints etc. always go to the scheduler's page. Now I do; that was all I was asking. Victoria (tk) 14:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Good to see you, Victoria, and looking forward to reviewing more of your articles at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)