Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 18

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 199.112.128.15 (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.

Bencherlite^Talk

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

iridescent

16:24, 16 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 {{

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: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)

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)

The following was moved from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Hitler Diaries, which is not an appropriate location for the discussion

Alternatives?

• Delegate's note - There's been considerable opposition to this suggestion. Does anyone have any alternatives? Be it a straight-worded or misleadingly worded possibility? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Suggestions
  talk
  ) 01:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We've got a month and seven days. That's certainly not enough for Piltdown man. Not familiar with the other two, but considering the current FAC backlog, I'd be surprised if either were finished on time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson has an amusing title as it sounds like a case at first glance...still looking...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Workable alternative, I think. At least for one of the "misleadingly worded" blurbs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a bunch of stuff at

• The new FA on the serial fraudster Gregor MacGregor who invented a British colony and persuaded 250 unfortunate people to migrate there would be an excellent choice (@Cliftonian:). There are a number of good options at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, with The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate being worth considering for the article name alone! The Susan B. Anthony dollar is also another fairly well-known failure along the lines of Disco Demolition Night, with the third para of the 'Reception' section having some amusing details explaining why. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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)]

I've posted at

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

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

David Levy

19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested in this idea, but think it needs consensus. --

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. SST

flyer

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 {{

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)

As seen in the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Star Trek, it is not immediately apparent whether a TFA has some significance regarding the date. Today's entry is obviously related to the 50th anniversary of the first episode screening, but personally I did not pick up on it until all of the DYKs caught my attention. On the other hand, tomorrow's TFA does not appear to have any special relationship to the date, but perhaps I'm missing something. Maybe this idea has been suggested and rejected before, but if we are going to go to the trouble of featuring an item on a specific date, why not mention it at the start of the blurb? For example, "Fifty years ago today, "The Man Trap" was first broadcast..." AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely. Unless you are going to make it clear that this is an aniversery thing by putting a mention in the "on this day" section then a greater effort needs to be expended to call attention to anniversary postings of featured content. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like we have today where everyone seems to be asking the same general questions about why we have so much star trek stuff on the main page. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I hadn't even thought of it for "The Man Trap", but certainly it should be something done in the future to call attention to the reason why certain articles have been chosen for TFA. Miyagawa (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer the mentioning in the blurb, because it's discouraged to have too many items point at the same thing. I remember that an image of Sibelius was not wanted in the DYK section on his 150th anniversary, because a (not so great) image came with the TFA about his 8th symphony. The DYKs were moved to the day before and after, while I would have liked a culmination like today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to get a broader discussion for this. The current TFA text says "it aired on NBC on September 8, 1966" in the second sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

One change would be uncontroversial, I think, if you guys think this would help: should we move the date up to the first sentence, like so? "The Man Trap", airing on September 8, 1966, on NBC, was .... - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have no objection at all to making relevant dates more prominent, but will very strongly oppose any use of "today". Wikipedia is a global project, and aside from the tiny fraction of our readers who live in
  Iridescent
  15:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• • How do we go about getting a change to happen here? You have to get to almost the end of today's blurb to realize the film premiered 90 years ago today. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Apologies, that was just a mistake. I always push an anniversary up to the first or second sentence, unless it's not relevant. It's fixed now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Morning. December 7 is the 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. It was a TFA back in 2003, but lost its status since then. I'm wondering if an attempt to return it to FA status would be prudent, seeing that it would be considered a double-header (albeit 13 years since). 25or6to4 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

To return it to FA status would be honourable, but a second appearance as TFA (ever) highly unlikely, - there were only few exceptions to showing an article only once. The good reason is that several thousand FAs are still waiting to appear a first time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ps: it was TFA in 2004, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania-class battleship would be an interested TFA for 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Both Pennsylvania-class battleships the Pennsylvania and Arizona were present during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The USS Arizona Memorial commemorates the events of that day. The Pennsylvania-class battleship has been featured article since May 19, 2013 and never been a TFA. (Halgin (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)).

... will be the 500th anniversary of the

The Halloween pseudotradition (along with April Fools) was a personal whim of Raul in 2007 (before that October 31 was treated as any other day), not any kind of policy; since we've jettisoned April Fools I don't see any issue with jettisoning Halloween as well. I would say that

Iridescent

17:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Luther for FA seems like a good idea! Who would undertake that? - I started expanding the cantata, but will wait with GA efforts until getting closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As a start, I'd look at who was involved in getting

Iridescent

20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(adding) If you can dig Ottava out of wherever he's currently lurking, he'd probably have something useful to add as well. ‑ 

Iridescent

20:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

RelHistBuff left a while back. I"m not touching Luther with a ten foot pole. I was going to work on PR for a core contest, but I doubt I'd have the stomach to take another big topic like that through FAC. I think I've done enough with Middle Ages, William the Conqueror, Norman Conquest, and Hastings, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

• Hi
  Iridescent raised concerns at my talk page
  that

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

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

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

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)

Did someone mean to break the category on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George Bernard Shaw? Le Deluge (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I just scheduled The Heart of a Woman for April 4, but there seems to be something odd about the nomination -- perhaps it was substed? Pinging Crisco 1492, who's done this many more times than I have, and Jimfbleak, who may be able to figure it out. Chris/Jim, I'm leaving it as is since I don't want to make things worse and I'm not sure what gets done as part of the subst. Let me know what to do and I'll do it manually; perhaps just manually make it resemble other completed TFARs is all that's needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Gerda appears to have not copied over the full template. I've closed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the existing page, so just follow the usual instructions, but don't worry about the blurb, I'll do that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In the light of two TFARs for May 2017 using the article subject's birthday as a date rationale, may I suggest that we adopt a policy whereby the birthday anniversaries of mass murderers, serial killers and other similarly "controversial" types are not accepted on our main page? This is not to say that the articles themselves should not run on other dates, but we should beware any suggestion that we are celebrating these gruesome lives. It should be noted that in neither of the two May cases were the articles' main editors responsible for the nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your rationale. But while this is being discussed, could you suggest how a specific date would be chosen to run such a TFA? — Maile (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Most dates are unconnected with either the individuals or their misdeeds, and the coordinators could select any of these neutral dates where the article's main page appearance is less likely to cause offence. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing was run on the anniversary date of the event. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

- but not on MacVeigh's birthday. I think it's for the coordinators to decide whether event anniversaries are approporiate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I figured out how to remove the image. Perhaps some information could be added to the instructions for requests to let editors know about

WP:NFCC#9? -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just realized the time limit on nominations, so I'm parking this here. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing the transclusion of

WP:TFAR. - Dank (push to talk

) 17:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a head's up: I'll be scheduling July next week, so if you have any more July nominations, please list them right away. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that articles that the readers have shown interest in should be highly prioritized for TFA. Guy Fawkes has met a lot of interest, 2600 views per day. Has it been shown? I am confused. The talk page does not say explicitly that it has been a TFA. In the list of categories at the bottom of the talk page it says that the article belongs to the category of articles that have NOT been presented. When I look in that category list, I can find Guy Fawkes Night, but NOT Guy Fawkes. Neither can I find it in WP:FANWP. Can someone solve this conundrum for me? --Ettrig (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither has appeared at TFA. I've asked the FAC nominator about running Guy Fawkes Night this November; we're strongly considering it. We wouldn't want to run both in the same month, of course, so Guy Fawkes might be good for November of next year. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone update the instructions to reflect the changes to the no-repeat-TFAs rule, please? (RfC) --Paul_012 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear Mike's and Jim's thoughts on this. What we've been doing is scheduling the whole month earlier than we used to, and that's one way of dealing with the problem that became apparent during and after the discussion you're linking. Editors never thought that the articles they put so much effort into would be running twice at FAC ... a large majority are very happy about it, but some are unhappy, with good reason, and you could make the argument that, for them, changing the rules this late in the game might be felt as a betrayal. Fortunately, there's an easy solution here: since we do so few TFA reruns (currently about 5 per month), and since so many editors are happy to see their articles rerunning, we've just been scheduling the reruns (and everything else) earlier than usual, giving people less time to argue over what should and shouldn't be rerunning. Bottom line: we have to balance Wikipedia doctrine with basic social skills here. Every article reviewing community (including FAC) is a community ... they work because they have shared understandings, because people feel like they have some idea what's going to happen when they take the scary step of putting a lot of effort into an article and submitting it for review. Because this is Wikipedia, a lot of weight is given to processes like TFAR that give a local, quick consensus on what to run. But if we aren't careful, if we violate the understandings editors had for years and cause them some pain in the process, then we're responsible for the consequences. Anyway, that's my two cents. Mike? Jim? - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we've had some unnecessary grief where a nom has been made at TFAR without the main editor being consulted, and that applies to new articles, not just re-runs. Otherwise, I think Dan's said it all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of what to do when an author does not want a re-run, which is a different issue, the instructions currently say this: The rules for nominations are relatively simple... [2] The article must not have appeared as TFA before... 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. Now that re-runs are not exceptional, the instructions ought to be updated. If I, for example, want one of "my" TFAs to appear again, at present the instructions say that this is against the nomination rules and is a matter for an exception, on request to the coordinators, rather than by TFAR nomination. That doesn't seem to have been enforced at

Bencherlite^Talk

16:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone complained? I scheduled 5 reruns for July. Castle was later in the month, but there was a complaint about what I originally scheduled on the 3rd and I needed something without a date connection to fill the gap. I don't have a lot of articles scheduled in July that don't have date connections, so the problem was overconstrained. The other 3 have date connections: Canada's 150th anniv. of Confederation, the American July 4, and Ringo's birthday (visible if you hover over the image). Apart from Castle, I wouldn't want to run any of those articles on any other day in July. On the other question, I personally don't have a problem with avoiding any edit to the TFAR instructions until we feel confident in the edit we make ... every month, we gain more data in how things are likely to play out. I also wouldn't oppose making the edit you suggest (well, imply) ... but if we don't like the result, we might need to have another look at what the RfC said, and try to get some insight into what's going wrong, and adjust the TFAR instructions accordingly. (I'm not predicting any disasters, I'm just saying that I have no idea if we'll like the results after the change; as far as I can tell, people are generally happy with the way it's working now. OTOH, as you point out, the way we handled Vampire and Grace Sherwood seems to be an exception to the rule, and there's value in eventually attaining a steady state of consistency and clarity.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Ringo's birthday isn't visible to me by hovering over the image since I have pop-ups enabled (like, I suspect, many editors (as opposed to readers)); I was wondering why such a high-profile article was being run on that particular day. Even a note in the instructions such as "the position for re-runs has now changed, please ask for details" (or such like) would be more helpful than the current disconnect between instructions and reality, which makes the TFAR process less accessible to those not "in the know". As you've seen from

Bencherlite^Talk

17:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and I don't disagree. I'm just saying that I don't like to hit "save" on an edit until I know what I want to say. The TFA coords are discussing this, of course, and I don't have strong feelings about this one, I'll be happy to go along for the ride. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think some of the issues that have come up are ones that I, at least, didn't think about when the RfC was going on -- for example, is it OK to put a rerun request in at TFAR or TFARP? I don't see any reason not to interpret the new rules broadly, so I'd be fine with people nominating reruns at those pages, though I think it would be good to make it clear those are rerun noms. As for 2/week vs. 5/month, I've been trying to spread them out across the month when I schedule, but I hadn't been thinking of that as an absolute requirement, so long as there were no more than 5 a month. I can see the case for spreading them out but as Dan says it can be tricky sometimes when moving things around to maintain variety, and I'd like that not to be a hard-and-fast rule. These points haven't been discussed much, so these are just my opinions. Yes, it makes sense to update the instructions, if we have agreement on what the change should be -- does anyone have suggested wording? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have suggested wording. Whatever we do, I'm going to take a wait-and-see position. We know that what we've been doing so far works, and I'll keep an open mind on whether other approaches can work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the spread of re-runs, although it would be ideal to run them at one a week, as Mike and Dan have said, that's not always possible. I also don't have a problem with TFAR re-runs, and with regard to a change in instructions, I think we need to see what's actually suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add (the above article) as the "Today's featured article" for September 29, 2017. Larsconks (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@

featured article yet. To promote it, you will have to improve it so that it can fulfill our featured article criteria. Thanks! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録

00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Larsconks (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL, a same-day request for a Featured Article. Can't say I've ever seen that before. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A new extensive article[2] has just been released about the dinosaur Ankylosaurus, which is scheduled for the main-page for October 22.[3] I'm thinking it might be a god idea to postpone the article until I and co-nominator LittleJerry will get time to incorporate new info about the animal, otherwise the article might be outdated and potentially inaccurate once it is on the main-page. Perhaps another dinosaur can take its current slot. Stegoceras could be considered, as it was FAC nominated by the same people, and is also an "armoured" dinosaur of sorts. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll ping Dank and Mike Christie, not sure who to contact otherwise. And maybe this wasn't the right page either. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer a TFA coordinator, but I agree this makes sense. Also pinging Jimfbleak. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this was the wrong page for this? Pinging Dank and Jimfbleak again, as time is running out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've seen this and i'll find a replacement, perhaps Dank can fix the blurb when I've done so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk LittleJerry, I'm going to run Amargasaurus on 22. Next month I schedule is January, so if Ankylosaurus is ready and hasn't been listed let me know in early December, either directly or via TFAR. FWIW, more eyes are likely to watch the main TFA talk page than this, but obviously we will pick up a ping here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, that should be enough time to fix the article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ian Johnson (cricketer) was born on 8 December 1917. We had Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Ian Johnson (cricketer), and he is listed in WP:TFARP. The first nom was before templated noms were introduced. What shall we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

As it says at that nomination page, as with every other unsuccessful nomination, For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

Bencherlite^Talk

12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If re-nominated, clear. Is it needed, that is the question, below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

is less than two weeks from now, DYK? Who will schedule, and when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, - the month all done! - I don't remember anything like it, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Applause. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think it might be a good idea to mention here that
  King's Highway 420, is rather associated with November 1, and is of comparatively minor significance. It is of course late in the game, and it hasn't even passed yet, but with an article of this importance, I think we could do a last minute rescheduling when it passes (if in time). FunkMonk (talk
  ) 11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if November 2 isn't possible, maybe put it somewhere in November instead of a "filler" article, Ealdgyth? FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it... not much to do until it actually passes...Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth. The article received its fifth and sixth support votes this morning, so – subject to Ian Rose and Sarastro1’s assessments – I think we might well make it in time.

I have proposed below a draft of the TFA text below. Is there anything you need from me as nominator to help the TFA process?

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve seen the promotion, I’ll get the change taken care of this weekend, I’m a bit busy with other stuff for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Ealdgyth and Dank: for making the change. Just wondering if you’re planning to add a picture of the declaration. I meant to add it above, but now it’s on the TFA page I’m more cautious of doing something wrong. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

At main page image size, the image would be meaningless (see right for how it would look at TFA). If you're going to use an image, you're probably better off with either a photo of Balfour or a map of Mandatory Palestine (although I'd be inclined not to go with the latter, in case readers misinterpret it as a map of present-day Israel which will prompt understandable complaints about including the West Bank without qualification). ‑ 

Iridescent

17:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging

David Levy. - Dank (push to talk

) 17:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks good, despite the small size. It has the same effect as the upcoming TFA: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/October_31,_2017 Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@

Could I ask that those wishing to have their articles considered for December add them to the template or the summary chart? I'm hoping to get this done by about November 10. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The cricketer (just above) is on the pending list (by Dweller), and there was old blurb. My question is if you would just schedule, of a new nom should be made, and if yes how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

At this point I've pencilled in everything nominated or put on the template for December, plus a few more, and I've added Johnson as well. That doesn't mean for sure I'm going to use them, I still have to go over them and make sure they're up to snuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the Johnson article. I don't see any issues except refs 107 and 108 are dead. These deal with cricket statistics and it's not something, sitting here watching the World Series, that I feel up to doing. If these can be replaced?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In case I didn't answer your question, Gerda, I won't insist on another nomination. I do have a tentative list for December that I've mostly gotten rid of the deadlinks from, but I need to do more work and won't schedule until about the 10th, so plenty of time to nominate or add to the template. Or mention here or on my talk, whatever you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you consider it mentioned? - I have to do right now (reformation, remember? 500 years on Tuesday). I'd hope that someone who knows cricket can fix the dead links, - or remove the facts if not crucial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, for the reminder. No, the only thing I need is those two refs fixed. I imagine that it's all on one of the cricket stats sites, but one of them has gone subscription, and though I understand the basics, beyond that I'm, er, stumped.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I got those two refs now, if that helps. Let me know if anything else needs checking for that article if it is to be TFA. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

75th anniversary, December 2

Hi. The 75th Anniversary for

I'm very fond of the

Chicago Pile 1 is the article featured in OTD in 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2015, so I would go with it. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

21:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I betray any state secrets by saying that's what I'm planning to do. Hawkeye7, when I run checklinks, the two Chicago Tribune sources come up funny. Do these need a subscription tag?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt, for having scheduled all of December already. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Bradley Cooper for 5 January had only one problem last year: being too close to another actor. I think we don't need to discuss it again, but am willing to nominate again if others disagree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to know how to re-nominate an article if it was declined in the past. I'm planning on requesting Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) for December 21, since it will mark the anniversary of its Japanese release; the previous request was declined for being too close to Super Mario Galaxy. JOEBRO64 23:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

December has been scheduled. I did warn everyone I was planning to schedule by about the 10th, which today is. No special procedure is required for second nominations in general, just put it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read the nomination: "or any day day after", - no problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I should be scheduling for February on the 16th or 17th - if anyone has anything else to nominate, now's the time to get it done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Slightly in advance of the event - the above date is Wikipedia's '18th birthday': could there be something special to recognise its 'coming of age'? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know of a Wikipedia-themed FA that's available. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Back when Raul was in charge, there was an explicit "no articles about Wikipedia" rule, to prevent the main page giving the impression of navel-gazing (brought about by Wikipedia's brief and promptly reversed elevation to FA status in what may have been the weakest FAC discussion ever). I don't know if the rule is still in place, or if it was ever actually formal, but I'd agree with it wholeheartedly. "Wikipedia Day" is an artificial construct of the WMF's press department; the project didn't suddenly appear cut from whole cloth on 15 January 2001 (Nupedia opened on 9 March 2000, the "wikipedia.org" domain was registered on 12 January 2001, and the WMF was created on June 20 2003). Since there's no reason a reader would know the (questionable) significance of the date, having Wikipedia or similar as TFA will just prompt complaints about navel-gazing.

For the 10th anniversary, we squared the circle of doing something special to mark the date, while not doing something that would just look like navel-gazing, by not running a TFA at all and instead showcasing featured content from other parts of the project that didn't normally get displayed on the main page (TFL didn't exist yet).

Note also that while a 10th anniversary is pretty much universally recognised as a landmark, the notion of "coming of age at 18" will be meaningless to readers in places where the age of majority is something other than 18, which isn't just a few outlying territories but core chunks of en-wiki's reader base like New Zealand, Scotland and most of Canada (there's

Iridescent

09:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a passing thought - I happened to notice the anniversary being the previous day while following a different line of pursuit - and the idea was more for something that was wikiverse-related than Wikipedia-centric.

And, for those looking for coincidences 4th January 2001 was, theoretically, HAL 9000's 9th 'birthday.'

Time to start thinking about the 'Wikipedia at 20' event/tidying up and updating project. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm planning to schedule March next week. People might want to have nominations in place this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of nominating a dinosaur for the premiere date of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, similar to when dire wolf was featured on the Game of Thrones season premiere date (nomination:[5]). But I'm wondering whether people think such TFAs seem too promotional or in bad taste? More specitically, I was thinking of the current FAC Dilophosaurus, which was made famous by the first JP film, and appears to be featured in the new one. The animal was depicted very inaccurately in the film, so it would also be a factual antidote to that depiction. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for educational. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

When you add a reason using the why=, it appears in the resulting table as a Why? link. However, nothing I can do will display the text under the link. Is there a trick, or is this broken? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

When I hover over the why? - like an abbreviation - I get the full explanation, as I get a preview of an article when I hover over a link. I don't remember if that needs coding, probably yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that this will only work on browsers/devices that support showing text on hover or screen-reading the text from the label. On some devices this may not be possible. --RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I get the question mark but no text. It's a Mac. Its a LONG delay before showing. Perhaps there is a better solution for this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

June has been scheduled according to my normal timeline. The counter is still showing June 16 for some reason, we are looking into that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that June 13 is supposedly "national pigeon day"[6][7]. Since Wikimedia has already had some pigeon specific activities[8], it might be a missed opportunity if we didn't do something there? I was wondering if, though June has already been scheduled, we could make a last minute change and have a pigeon article on June 13? The current TFA for that day does not seem to be date specific[9] (though Wehwalt might know better), and it could maybe replace the bird TFA for June 4[10] (which I FAC nominated anyway, and is not date specific)? Then for example Rodrigues solitaire, a famous extinct pigeon, could take the June 13 spot instead? I FAC nominated that, and it is the only pigeon FA I could find that hasn't already been TFA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

National Pigeon Day is an event that's just taking off, so to speak. It's being promoted by The New York Bird Club, and I see PETA gives it a mention, and there are blog and Facebook posts along the lines of, "Hey, check out this new weird event". Right now, it's just something people are looking for free promotion for, and in general, I'm allergic to free promotion. The specific request for June 13 is up to Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dank. It would be the equivalent of—if I may use the analogy—putting Banana split on the main page, just because the Milk Marketing Board said it was its day :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I must admit I know nothing about this event, I just looked up if any pigeon specific days existed, because there will soon be a citation overhaul in the Rodrigues solitaire article. It wouldn't be too overt, though, since the bird doesn't even have the word "pigeon" in its name... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My position is that I prefer not to replace for something that can be done next year as well. We'll still be here then. Obviously applying it with exceptions on a case by case basis. But on something like this, where a promotional aspect might be controversial, I think would be best done through a TFA/R, where it can be discussed more thoroughly according to our usual process.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know of the promotional angle. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I was just stating a general principle. And I only speak for me and not for my fellow coordinators.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Could people please make their nominations for September? I'm hoping to schedule towards the end of next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to change the queue for Today's featured article once it has been created?

The article Kate Sheppard has just been promoted (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Sheppard/archive1 as the bot has not yet processed the result). Sheppard was the leader of the women's suffrage movement in New Zealand, and women's gained the right to vote on 19 September 1893 - 125 years ago next month. This is being marked by a number of events around New Zealand, and I think this would have been a strong candidate to appear on the Wikipedia main page for that day had the promotion come a week or so earlier.

If the queue is set in stone, I do have an alternative date this article could appear - 28 November, the 125th anniversary of the first NZ election in which women actually voted - but as far as I am aware, the focus in NZ is on the 19 September anniversary rather than the 28 November.

This is my first featured article so I don't know the protocol here. I would appreciate advice on how to proceed. @Wehwalt:, are you the appropriate person to ping?-gadfium 21:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I found the list of TFA coordinators, so pinging @Dank, Jimfbleak, and Ealdgyth: as well.-gadfium 21:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No. 33 Squadron RAAF wasn't one I nominated for TFA -- I've had more than my share of articles on the front page and would be very happy to give up that date for another article, particularly an important one that has a strong connection to the date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Gadfium is right, Suffrage Day (September 19th) would be the best date to mark the 125th anniversary. In New Zealand we're commemorating it with a sunrise celebration including the PM; in Christchurch a ceremony at the Suffrage Memorial and comemmoration; and events in Wellington, Tauranga, New Plymouth, and Hamilton. It would be great if Kate Sheppard could feature on the 19th, and I'm sure there'd be some positive mentions of Wikipedia in the NZ media as a consequence. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggested writeup for the article:

Katherine Wilson Sheppard (née Catherine Wilson Malcolm; 10 March 1848 – 13 July 1934) was the most prominent member of the women's suffrage movement in New Zealand and the country's most famous suffragette. Born in Liverpool, England, she migrated to New Zealand with her family in 1868, where she became an active member of various religious and social organisations, including the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). In 1887 she was appointed the WCTU's National Superintendent for Franchise and Legislation, a position she used to advance the cause of women's suffrage in New Zealand.

Kate Sheppard promoted women's suffrage by organising petitions and public meetings, by writing letters to the press, and by developing contacts with politicians. She was the editor of the White Ribbon, the first woman-operated newspaper in New Zealand. Through her skilful writing and persuasive public speaking, she successfully advocated women's suffrage. This work culminated in the successful extension of the franchise to women on 19 September 1893. As a result, New Zealand became the first country to establish universal suffrage.

I don't have any objection to changing it. These things happen. I'll probably get to it tomorrow, when I am hoping to catch up on work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks!-gadfium 22:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In view of the association of Apollo 8 with Christmas Eve, would it be possible to swap the articles for 24 and 27 December around? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Dank: (taps microphone) Anyone? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Hawkeye, not ignoring you, and this isn't a great time for me. Wehwalt? - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. My reluctance is because December 24 was requested, and it is an anniversary. Not as significant as 8's Genesis reading, of course. I might suggest talking to the nominator of the Carolwood Pacific Railroad and see what they think. Very few dates were requested for next month, but they all are right there, December 21 to 25.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

While March 29 (Brexit @ 23:00h UTC) already has a request to feature Referendum Party, I want to note two other options:

• European Commission (TFA 2007)
• European Parliament (TFA 2008)

Apart from the connection, I have no reason to propose these. -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding, possibly appropriate:

• British Empire (TFA 2009), -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is anywhere near the level of significance at which Wikipedia should be running "date relevance" TFAs, and certainly not remotely near the level of significance that would justify running repeat FAs. (Notwithstanding the heat-and-light hyperbole, we're talking about a relatively small country withdrawing from a trade body, not the fall of Fort Sumter; we didn't consider running a themed day to coincide with the US withdrawal from NAFTA.) If the delegates really feel the need to run a Brexit-themed TFA then of the existing FA pool

Iridescent

17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

...is why I mentioned them, not proposed them. "a relatively small country withdrawing from a trade body, not the fall of Fort Sumter;" -- last try for irony from a

Don't mention the war

" (1975)).

BTW, remind us that we need to change these

This is to be the EP language then. -DePiep (talk

) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Currently Harta Berdarah is scheduled for May 7th. Any chance that The Mummy (1999 film) could be scheduled for that day instead? It's the 20th anniversary of the film, and I noticed it on requests pending. It's not my nomination, so I only noticed this now. I don't think Harta Berarah has anything special going on with May 7th. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators The instructions say to check with the coordinators about repeats, so before I create the nom I wanted to see if there is any objection or advice about me nominating Harriet Tubman for a second appearance at TFA. The previous appearance was in 2009. September 17 will be the 170th anniversary of her escape from slavery, and there is renewed interest in her this year due to the change in plans for the $20 bill and a movie about her set for release in November. I've spent the last few weeks updating the article to make sure it is up to current FA standards. --RL0919 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm the scheduling coordinator for September. I have no objection to it being mainpaged again. I suggest nominating at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the prompt feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Does

That page (I heard) was edited to say one thing in March I think, and then the edit was reverted within the last two days. Regardless, here's the rule I've followed all year and never had any problems (though I needed to argue my case once or twice): we always bypass redirects (that is, we ignore NOTBROKEN), unless a redirect is unpiped and points to a section of a page, not to the top of the page. We have one or two of those per month, and I personally watchlist the redirect pages to make sure they don't get vandalized (which is the big concern among ERRORS folks). - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the page where you want the edit notice added? (I asssume it will be some kind of group page). - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry I got a little over-enthused and wrote the blurb for this myself, didn't realise that it was meant to be written by someone else. Apologies for the bad form, and please remove or advise me how to fix it. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly fine ... 11 FACs were promoted on the same day, so we're still working on the blurbs ... should be done in a couple of hours. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

See the FAC talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@

Femke Nijsse That's probably the best plan, April is already scheduled, and I guess it will be a couple of weeks before the May scheduling starts and clears some of the slots. We have seen this message anyway, so with luck we will remember... Jimfbleak - talk to me?

16:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This may be a statement of the obvious, but would it not make sense to wait until the coronavirus has settled down? Global warming is obviously still happening but since presumably running it would be at least in part an awareness-raising exercise, it would make sense to me to save your one shot for a time when there's a less distracted audience. At the moment, in all en-wiki's core markets "climate strike" has as much impact as a strand of limp spaghetti; plus, the enforced temporary shutdown of industries and air travel is going to create a huge stack of fresh data which will presumably impact on climate modelling. ‑ 

Iridescent

16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Iri on the timing, but also, and in view of the considerable changes to the article, and its interesting history, I do not believe it should run TFA until it has been reviewed for FA standards.

WP:FAR is misunderstood as a place only to get articles defeatured, when it is also a place to get older FAs reviewed per standards. I would support a TFA if this article is re-reviewed at FAR before running; too old, too controversial, too many changes that need review from FAC people. A controversial FA that was last reviewed in 2007 simply cannot be assumed to be at standard, and having a comprehensive re-review would benefit the article and the process (all FAs that old should be undergoing new review anyway). On just a cursory glance, there are a number of LAYOUT issues, some very old sources, too many sources highlighted by Headbomb's script that should be doublechecked, so ... not ready for prime-time even on a simple glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to go through FAR and wait untill coronavirus stops dominating the news (and hopefully settles down). Last July actually, I asked whether global warming could go through FAR, but was told it was a venue of last resort. It seems like FAR has changed a bit since? I'll need some help with LAYOUT and have no knowledge of Headbomb's script, but should be able to update some more sources. Most remaining old sources are used for somewhat self-evident sentences, but undoubtedly I will have missed some that should have been updated.

@

talk

) 19:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The idea of FAR being a venue of last resort is unfortunate. It was always intended to have TWO phases: the first is for review, the second is for removal. The idea is to restore as many stars as possible, which is why it is a deliberative and very slow process. FAR has not changed; misinformation about FAR is what has changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I certainly see no reason why it could not be listed for review. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Great. I'll do one more round of updating references and then I'll sign it up for FAR. Thanks.

talk

) 09:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is quite long. And could you get some extra eyes on text (get several experienced FA writers to do a complete run-through) before you approach FAR? Otherwise, we might be there a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Would you know where I can find those experienced FA writers? Or do you know any from the top of your mind that might be willing to help?

talk

) 12:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The content is outside of the area of the copyrighters I most respect. (Not sure if this up the alley for @

WT:FAC if no one surfaces (explain that you are updating an old FA and plan to submit it to FAR for a solid re-review). SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 13:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Global warming? If so, I would be happy to give it a FA refresh copy edit if someone would appoint themselves liaison person and contact me to discuss a remit. It would have to take a ticket though. Gog the Mild (talk

) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@

User:Femkemilene, and I believe the article talk for now. They plan to later submit it to FAR. I have pointed out very old sources, too many images, and sandwiching of text between images. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 13:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it. Already replaced a few old sources, removed some images, shortened the lede the tiniest bit. @

talk

) 15:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, cheers. If you could ping me at the same time I will see if I can pick it up. (I do a fair bit of work at GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk

) 16:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is not in good shape, via years of neglect. For example, there are 27 cites in the lead, the prose in places, is non scientific to say the least, often emotive, and there is no real thrust of narrative; the opinions are all over the place, and not coherent time wise. Suggest this is taken to FAR where improvements can be achieved within a structured, formal process, and it is likely to get more eyes. There is no rush, given the current global crisis, and would be glad to help, perhaps on condition that Gog the Mild is also in, and I know it has some hope of coming out the other side. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

talk

) 11:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Femkemilene I hope you can see them as not "harsh", but just a reflection of reality when an article was last reviewed a decade ago. Ceoil (along with five other editors, at least) helped me in a months-long effort to update 2006-promoted Tourette syndrome, and it isn't a controversial topic (just needed citations updated to latest available, and prose refinement). I hope you are settled in and willing to put in at least a months' worth of work, because that's likely what it will take for such a technical topic and such an old FA. Ceoil says to do it at FAR, while I suggest getting more of the basics out of the way pre-FAR. You all should decide on talk when is the best time to approach FAR. Best of luck. When all the copyediting, updating is done, I will have a look at MOS-y stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 14:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I see them as a harsh reflection of reality. I simply overestimated the current quality of the article, I'm not trying to critisize the words. At least a month's work seems very reasonable.

talk

) 15:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Femke, didnt mean to sound harsh, just was giving an honest assessment. Frankly I have a lot of admiration for ye for taking this on, and I can see from the history ye have made huge improvement. But, yes would be glad to help. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: I'm not tied to FAR for now, I see it is being heavily edited by the team, lots of discussion on talk, and lots of energy. Lets leave for a week or so before deciding on a review path. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

G'day @WP:TFA coordinators , given there are already five untied noms for May, is it worth me adding another, or would it not get a run? The article in question is Waterloo Bay massacre. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, and given that I'm scheduling May... shouldn't be an issue. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I wish you would stop being so difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Lazy. I'm LAZZYYY. The more folks put things up here, the less thinking I have to do! --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker, send chocolate ... lots of chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators - Right now at FAC I’m working on trying to get Sega through. I was strongly hoping as long as it passes this time to have it on the main page on June 3, as that is Sega’s 60th anniversary. While it still has a fair bit of time to go since I nominated it (for the third time) a week and a half ago, I feel good about where the feedback is at and that it will pass this time. Provided it does, is there a way to put it down for that date? I know it’s a tight time frame, but I’d hate to miss such a big milestone for an article considered Top-importance by the Video games WikiProject. Thank you, Red Phoenix ^talk 17:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am scheduling June but will likely not do so until somewhere around May 10 to 15th. There are things I can do depending on where we are in the process when it passes. I don't expect a problem if you don't cut it too close.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That is, ping me early in May. If necessary I'll put something in the June 3 slot that can be moved to the end of the month if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that in a few days if things stay on the upswing. Right now the Sega FAC has three supports and no opposes, so it's looking good so far. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, you might want to ping me when it passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I just wanted to check in with you on the process so far. The Sega FAC is at three supports (and no opposes), but has stalled out a bit awaiting a source review and possibly the completion of two reviews from reviewers who started but haven't commented in at least three weeks. I have left a request for a source review at the FAC talk page and tried to stir up some reciprocity by working on the list myself, but I know we're running out of time here. I did want to suggest, if we do run out of time, that I may have an alternative to suggest in Sonic X-treme—a cancelled game starring Sega's mascot which passed FAC in 2018, has never ran on the Main Page, and doesn't really have specific dates associated with it. That being said, while it's a Sega-related article that could be ran on Sega's 60th anniversary, I still strongly feel the company article is a much better fit if I can get it through very soon. Let me know what you think; I feel bad that this is cutting so close and that the momentum stalling out is making it more difficult. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It will work out. Keep me posted. I'll do what I said above if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, I will be scheduling over the next couple of days. I can't not schedule June 3 as it would confuse the bot. I'm going to put one of my coin articles in the slot for now. If Sega passes by the end of the month, fine. After that, I'm not sure there would be enough time so that people can look at the blurb and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Thank you, I understand if that's what happens. At this point, I think it's a pretty sure pass with 4 supports, no opposes, and completed image and source reviews. I'm basically just waiting for an FAC coordinator, and I pinged them but haven't received a response yet. Hopefully they swing by pretty soon. Even if they don't, I thank you for helping me and for making an attempt at trying to make this happen. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: We have a pass as of this morning, see [11] here. Are we still able to slip this in? Red Phoenix ^talk 12:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations. Yes, I'll go through it later this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's done, but it doesn't show on Talk:Sega and probably won't until the bot goes through the newly promoted articles. I will doublecheck once it does to make sure there were no problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Main page participants should probably be aware of this discussion, though it does not appear at present it will gain consensus. It is titled "A BLM main page".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor question

For some reason, it's now "July 27 to August 26", but looks still wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Now: "July 29 ..." - how is this programmed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it ok to try and book a slot twelve months ahead. Am thinking of requesting that Five Go Down to the Sea? appears on 18 June 2021, as is the anniversary of vocalist Finbarr Donnelly's death. The occasion is usually met in his home city by a tribute live event (incl a reformed band with a guest vocalist), and (local) press retrospectives. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We can't promise certainty this early, we don't know what will come along, but you can certainly add it to the pending template and then TFA/R nominate it next spring.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, hadn't been aware of that. Ceoil (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

G'day coords, just wondering if there are any criteria coalescing around the justification for re-runs, or any indication of how often it is happening? I have a handful of 2013/14/15 FACs that are still in pristine nick. None attracted more than 50K views, but still... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No standards other than only run once, five years have passed, and I think not more than two in a week. Personally, I try to run one in a month. Suggest putting them up at TFA/R. The RfC that authorized us to run articles a second time said that the community could give us additional standards for when to, but this did not happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

What a shame that we missed this, when we have four related FAs !

• https://www.foxnews.com/science/christmas-star-is-coming-jupiter-saturn-double-planet-800-years

We have FAs,

• Jupiter
• Saturn
• Ganymede (moon)
• Titan (moon)

and maybe more ... I haven't checked. These are the kinds of things for which I wish we could make last-minute adjustments at TFA, which is now scheduled so far in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the current article listed, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, relevant for that date? We've made last minute changes to get in more relevant TFAs before... I think date relevant articles should always be prioritised over randomly picked articles... FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, @Kaiser matias: ... perhaps he won't mind if we swap it out. Have we ever had a four-way TFA? @Serendipodous: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't see anything particular, and I would hate to be the one to get in the way of something like this. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What a gem :) I pinged Serendipodous, astronomy editor. If others think this is viable, I will ping the WikiProject in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be willing to switch in Jupiter or Saturn (or both) if they were fit to run. Just looking at Jupiter I see uncited matter and at least one "out of date estimate tag". I handle all the months in which a solstice or equinox occurs, and I do often put in an astronomy article on that date, but there was no available article when I scheduled (one has been promoted since and I think I saw it is slated for January).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

First I have heard of it ... spotted on Facebook. So, should I ping in the WikiProject for improvements? Don't want to do that prematurely. I pinged Serendipodous, but will now email as well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I need the "day after tomorrow FA" on WP:ERRORS to point to the right blurb so if something's ready for prime time on the 18th, I'll switch it. I think it would be a good thing for such an important article, or articles, to be cleaned up, and am happy to give the little incentive I can of a main page appearance. I didn't see it either until today. I imagine the conjunction has been known for some time but it didn't catch the media's attention until now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool beans ... I pinged the talk page of

WP:URFA/2020 (all hands on deck), and will ping next the WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 18:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I may have time this weekend to improve the climate section of Titan. It needs updating and can do with more high-quality sources.

talk

) 18:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I left lists at three of the four (see WikiProject Astronomy talk), so please see the lists on other pages for Titan, which is more of same. Jupiter is in the worst shape, while a lot of the others have what seem (to a non-astronomer) to be mostly cosmetic ... the image sandwiching is out of control everywhere. If significant people engage, I can help with the cosmetic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

update

Wehwalt keeping you updated. There has been very little progress on these Astronomy articles, but perhaps the weekend will see some activity.

On the other hand, the Pfizer vaccine is launched in the UK, and announced for launch in the US, and the Immune system update has come together nicely. There are only a few page numbers on sources missing, and it should do just fine. Will let you know for sure next week. Thanks for the extra effort to make these happen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Ping me when you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you mentioned you needed to know by the 18th; we are four days away, six days after raising the possibility, and there has been NO action at either Jupiter or Saturn, so ... we tried ... should the necessary improvements still happen, I think we'd be cutting it too close on making sure any revisions are up to snuff and all the issues are addressed, so perhaps we should at this late stage stick with the User:Kaiser matias article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Immune system 30 Dec

Immune system, on the other hand, is ready. I will work on filling in the minor instances of page numbers still needed (recall that until recently, page numbers were never required on journal article sources for medical articles at FAC, but we have the source now to fill in the less than a handful needed).

Here is the blurb approved on talk;[12] thank you for switching this re-run in on 30 December, allowing the main page to feature timely content related to the COVID vaccine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The

cancer cells and objects such as wood splinters, distinguishing them from the organism's own healthy tissue. Many species have two major subsystems of the immune system. The innate immune system provides a preconfigured response to broad groups of situations and stimuli. The adaptive immune system provides a tailored response to each stimulus by learning to recognize molecules it has previously encountered. Both use molecules and cells to perform their functions. Humans have sophisticated defense mechanisms, including the ability to adapt to recognize pathogens more efficiently. Adaptive (or acquired) immunity creates an immunological memory leading to an enhanced response to subsequent encounters with that same pathogen. This process of acquired immunity is the basis of vaccination. (Full article...

)

That's done I think. Looks like good work, congrats to all involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt and ... @

Iridescent, RexxS, WhatamIdoing, Roxy the dog, Zefr, Spyder212, and DrKay: and anyone else I missed ... now we need to watch it like hawks, as commercial interests related to the COVID vaccine attempt to cram every possible off-topic NOTNEWS connection in there :) As Graham has had to say several times, this is a biology article, not a medical one. Thanks for allowing this opportunity to showcase current interest articles on the main page! SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary chart updating

Has the summary chart always had to be updated manually? That seems like a task that'd be very ripe for getting taken over by a bot. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 28 § Template:Today's featured article request

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 21 § Template:Today's featured article request. I think this template is unused, but wanted to notify you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog nomination

I just wanted to ask a question: is it alright if I go ahead and nominate Sonic the Hedgehog for June 23? I know it's three days away from the current latest date, but I'd just like to nominate it because I'm afraid it'll slip my mind and another article will end up getting run instead. (I'd worked on the article hoping I could run it on the 23rd, as that's the franchise's 30th anniversary.) JOEBRO64 14:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(coordinator comment)You can go ahead. May's been selected, though Gog hasn't completed the full scheduling yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! JOEBRO64 17:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IX

Noticed that Gog the Mild has scheduled Final Fantasy IX for 24 May and I'm a little iffy about this. The article needs some clean-up if it is to run as it hasn't received formal review since its FAC in 2007 (14 years ago). A non-exhaustive list of concerns from a preliminary read-through:

• The sourcing in Gameplay is not up to modern standard, hinging mostly on the game's instruction manual instead of
  RS
  . Prose is hard to follow for the non-gamer as jargon could be better explained.
• Setting and characters very thin on sourcing (maybe ok per
  WP:VG/CONTENT
  at 770 words.
• Prose needs tightening in spots, lots of examples below FA standard (particularly in gameplay). Two big ones that stood out: "Moogles may request the playable character deliver letters to other Moogles via Mognet, playable characters might also receive letters from non-playable characters"; "The movies are seen as emotive and compelling, and the seamless transition and incorporation to the in-game graphics helped to move the plot well".
• Numerous choppy paragraphs; the opening three "paragraphs" in reception are disorganised.
• Nothing that evaluates the game in retrospect?

There's more below the surface, I'm sure. I think these issues are pressing enough but could be fixed in time. If not, I think it could be "rescued" at

WP:FAR. Courtesy pings: Sjones23, Bluerfn and Judgesurreal777. — CR4ZE (T • C

) 15:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know how it goes. I had originally scheduled The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, 2007; but there was a TFAR for FFIX, so I swapped. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m sure it can be fixed by then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it’s nearly fixed with three days left! Should be set on time for it’s big appearance! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So, extensively re-rewritten across the whole article, clarified, reduced plot section to 700 words, re-organized the reception section, added a Legacy section. That should be sufficient for it’s main page debut. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wii nomination

@WP:TFA coordinators , I was considering it would be neat to feature the Wii on the front page once more, for the following reasons:

1. It's coming up on its 15th anniversary soon, November 19, 2006 (this would be the specific date nomination)
2. It's been almost 14 years since its last appearance; this means that it was featured only a year after release, with its legacy being built in the meantime
3. It's recently been reworked at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wii/archive2

Not sure if this is the place to do it, but would these be justifiable reasons to do so? I would warn

WP:VG in advance. Panini!^🥪

00:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest putting it up at TFA/R when that date is within the range (i.e., once October is scheduled).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we occasionally do reruns, and with a significant date and a well maintained article, it's a reasonable nomination for a second go. As always, no guarantees though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Locating the blurb

Hello. WP:TFAR advises that a blurb of the FA will appear on the talk page of its FAC nomination, however I am having trouble finding one for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, of which I was the nominator and is my first FA. Has it just not been added yet? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94, correct. Feel free to have a go yourself, but otherwise, if selected for August one will be written by one of the coordinators. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd already went ahead and wrote one myself. It's scheduled for July. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article - pending requests

I originally reverted this edit [13] by 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F1DE:5552:2BE4:7FD. They reverted me back, [14] claiming that there was good reasons to remove it. I tried to engage in a discussion with them on their talk page [15] but they reverted with an edit summary of "don't be an idiot". [16] I must admit that I have no idea how the pending requests for Today's Featured Articles work, and I don't want to start an edit war, so I was just wondering if maybe an uninvolved editor could give me some advice? Am I in the wrong here? Clovermoss (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest letting it go. I schedule September and I get what happened. Besides, it's my thought to run a 9/11 article on the 20th anniversary if one of the FAs related to that remains in decent shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Delay / Re-Schedule TFA

Recently the TFA for Ur-Quan was scheduled for later this month. I put in a TFA request and was trying to get a consensus to feature it on February 17, 2022. You can see the request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. Is there any way to delay (or, if necessary, cancel) the TFA? Shooterwalker (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeat request

I requested that Battle of Panormus be scheduled and it didn't make it. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Battle of Panormus. I want to make a further request for it. How do I do so? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What is wanted? Possibly it can be done informally.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Battle of Panormus for a non-specific slot for December. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made a note of it and will put it in somewhere, likely the latter part of the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

TFA request correct?

I nominated an article for a TFA and want to make sure I did it correctly. Should I add it to the list on this page for a certain date (or nonspecific date) as well? Here is the nomination: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Eewilson (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson, your TFA is formatted correctly; for a non-specific date nomination, paste {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Symphyotrichum lateriflorum}} under the non-specific date 1 subheader. If you want to have your article appear on the front page on a specific date, do so under "specific date nominations", and make a new subheader with the date you want within it. Panini!^🥪 18:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a strong reason for having it in December? Because we've scheduled the month. I have some flexibility and can get it in there if there's a good reason, but if January would be just as good, it would almost certainly run then, and that would allow me to keep that flexibility for a greater emergency.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

January is fine. I'll put it on the list for January. Does it need to have multiple people supporting the nomination? I'm unclear on how that works. Eewilson (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson, people need to support your nomination, but due to the massive process called FAC that happens beforehand it's pretty much redundant and mainly boils down to people reviewing the prose in your blurb. Once you get about 3-5 supports from people it'll be moved to the TFA queue (see this example). Panini!^🥪 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's a problem, we TFA coordinators tend to run anything presented to us. Yes, the prose may be worked over, it's a good idea to watchlist the page the blurb appears on and also

WP:ERRORS for the two days before and the day of the appearance.--Wehwalt (talk

) 18:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused how to future nominate articles

I want to nominate The Empire Strikes Back for May 4. I can see that someone has already put Lego Star Wars down for then but I can't see how to nominate that far ahead. I don't know if those ones are set in stone but I'd at least like to be in contention if possible. I've not used this service before so it's a bit lost on me. Can anyone advise me? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

potential requests, those can be added by any user by editing the chart and serves as a place to post future plans to nominate items for TFA. SounderBruce

10:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

April will be scheduled in early or mid March. You'll be able to nominate for May then.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Name as nominator, when I wasn't

I'm listed as a nominator for March 4 (A Death in the Family (comics)), but I have no connection to that, and don't want to take any credit here for that. Can someone update that please? Kaiser matias (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: I fixed this, please check to ensure everything was done properly. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for your help. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Template for the time period noms are open isn't working?

This appears borked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw that. I hope I didn't screw it up somehow when I was scheduling March today.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this only worked for 50 days ahead, and since I had to schedule early this month since I'm busy next week, we're scheduled more than 50 days ahead right now. Since this may happen again, I've expanded it to 60 days. I doubt we'll ever get further ahead then that. And this fixed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Socrates Nelson: TFA scheduled for March 3, 2022

@

Aoba47, Gog the Mild, Kavyansh.Singh, and DMT Biscuit

:

Concerns were raised about this article at FAC Talk and Talk:Socrates Nelson. The article runs for some 2,300 words and so far about 7,500 words have been spent discussing and addressing the concerns that it does not meet the stellar FA standard, as in "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work".

I re-looked at the article last night and saw remaining outstanding concerns about prose and paragraph structure. I then had a look at the lede section of

Van Gogh

, which is FA, and which I recall having some peripheral involvement quite a while I ago in the lead up to submitting it at FAC. Comparing the relatively sparkling lede of Van Gogh with the lede of Socrates Nelson, confirmed my impression that the SN article does not yet cut the mustard. Yes, it may not cause embarrassment at TFA. Equally that is not an excuse, in my opinion, to let it get through as is. In this context, the TheTechnician27, as the TFA nominator, wrote:

"While the date isn't extremely important, I would prefer either March 3 for the founding of the Minnesota Territory or, if that's not feasible, April 11 as an Easter egg for the founding date of the Washington County Historical Society."[4]

My inclination therefore is to recommend cancelling the March 3 TFA so that User:TheTechnician27 can work on getting the prose and structure up to FA standard or getting help do so, in order to hopefully meet the April 11 suggestion. Failing that, since the date isn't extremely important, when it gets up to standard.

OTOH, I appreciate that, as @SandyGeorgia: put it, "Juggling a TFA too close to the deadline creates a big fuss and problem for everyone."

If that is deemed to be unavoidably the case, then so be it, I will withdraw my concerns and chalk it up to an aspect of the FAC process that needs to be improved e.g. we have MOS checks, and image checks, to which should be added a specific prose check. Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If (1) community has identified few concerns in the article (2) some concerns are still outstanding, and (3) work is still being done to improve the article, I have no objections with re-scheduling the article from March 3 to April 11. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 any thoughts? It strikes me it might be best to remove it and you can renominate it at TFA/R when it's ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I hope Sandbh will temper expectations according to what the sources provide. We will never get a Van Gogh lead out of the limited material written about the relatively unknown Socrates Nelson. Outside of the town of Stillwater, people even in Minnesota have probably never heard of him, and Washington County Historical Society's own accounting of the area history gives him one brief mention, as a treasurer. The version that passed FAC had considerable misstatements and unverified text, along with the trivia and prose issues, but I believe the article now reflects a comprehensive and accurate representation of the sources (thanks to improvements from @Buidhe, Graham Beards, and Hog Farm: along with the work done by Sandbh and myself). Fixing prose is not my strength, but I'm concerned there's not much that can be eked out of what is written about him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there's not much that can be added here. Outside of some prose polishing, I'm not sure there's much more that can be done here. Hog Farm _Talk 15:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

My thought would be that a fresh TFA/R would give the community another opportunity to debate whether this should be run.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

@WP:TFA coordinators — Near the end of the FAC for the Super Mario 64 article, I was suggested by Panini! to nominate this for today's featured article. Panini! and I think there's been a sufficient amount of time (it was first ran in January 2005). I wanted to see what the coordinators think. If it's fine to do this, I'd like the date to be September 29th, the 26th anniversary of the North American release (obviously, this isn't meant as an actual nomination, I'm asking if it can be added to the requests template). — Coolperson177 (t|c) 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@

J.K. Rowling and Macintosh Classic) so I think it is allowed. If TFA co-ords say no, then I will go through the list and remove some of my suggestions that are also TFA re-runs. Z1720 (talk

) 01:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Coolperson177:, provided they meet the other requirements for reruns, they can be listed at TFAR or TFARP in the usual way. Obviously if there is a new, date-linked, FA nominated for the same date, that is likely to be prioritised, but otherwise no problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It would likely run if nominated but it would also depend on what else is nominated. We generally limit to one video game article per month and if there's a video game FA nominated with a major anniversary right there, well, yours might have to wait or be scheduled early in the month to allow spacing, that sort of thing. We like to encourage people to improve former Featured Articles, but it's early days yet and we don't know what will be nominated. Suggest adding it to the template above as a first step.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically, @Coolperson177, the only real rule is that the article was last run at least five years ago and has maintained its quality. In this case it went through a complete overhaul and re-nomination to current standards, so it fits these rules nicely. According to those above, it will most likely run on your suggested date as long as there isn't too much other video game content impeding it. Even if it doesn't end up being run the day you request, it can always be nominated for a regular unspecified date, just in case. Panini! • 🥪 14:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

TFA for May 2.

Hi guys, historically I have gotten the previous year's world championship to run on the same day as the final of this year's tournament. I'd like to keep up the tradition, but my FAC of 2021 World Snooker Championship has yet to finish (despite my best efforts). If it passes, I'd like to run a blurb on the final day of this year's event. If it fails, or is still open for whatever reason, I'd like to run one of my other world championship events that hasn't yet run at TFA (for instance, 2002 and 2018 haven't run yet, as have another 10 or so). Would this be something we could organise? Happy to run it through the usual process, but obviously wouldn't be able to do so with the 2021 article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick pings @Jimfbleak and Wehwalt:. If this isn't cool, no problem, I'll just nominate something now for the date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe Gog the Mild will be scheduling May.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds manageable. Could you put a request in for 2021, even though it is at FAC? This will "reserve" the date and give a chance for any opposes. If it doesn't come out of FAC in a timely fashion we could discuss the situation then. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sorry for the poop timing of it all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick

has already appeared, sorry bro! Also, out of curiosity, for your four-day residency July 19 thru 22 inclusive, how were you planning to describe when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page for three of them...?! :p SN54129 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It gives !voters and the scheduler plenty to choose from. Surely the very definition of diversity? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Malformed

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Super Columbine Massacre RPG!2 was listed as non-specific 2, but is malformed and was whacking out the whole page, so I removed it. Can someone fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, should probably be left removed (I am also an Oppose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it was just missing a </div> tag to close the border. I've added it in, but it appears this won't pass anyways. Panini! • 🥪 13:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sandy, Panini!, part of the issue here is that the image selected is non-free and cannot be used on the main page or in projectspace, so the image on that one needs disabled somehow. Hog Farm _Talk 14:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add it back but the nom is still malformed; I give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Think it's fixed now; I fixed and reinstated the malformed nom, but @WP:TFA coordinators need to deal with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks. June isn't my month, but this is presumably non-runnable. The shooting is one thing, a game about it is not for the main page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been removed. Since I was certain the community would !vote it down, I saw no need to intervene.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Common sense prevails ... recalling the big fuss when people thought Buruli ulcer was disgusting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't plan on closing it, but will leave it for July's schedule to decide if they want to run it. I have June pretty much set, but of course will alter it for further TFA/R nominations.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Firmer criteria definition needed?

The user who goes by the name Great Mercian has spent two of their last 30 edits opposing TFA nominations by me for reasons I deem bogus and unfair. The lack of a firm criteria for TFA nominations causes an issue as hard-working users who have worked their butts off to get their articles promoted by a specific deadline are sabotaged at the last minute. Has there been a discussion about introducing regulations that can be used to defend against "I don't like it" oppose votes? Thanks to anyone who will participate.--NØ 16:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

you know, you can just call me Great Mercian. My concern with the current request is that I think there was a Meghan Trainor article featured quite recently. You can bother to look past the Oppose? Great Mercian (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

yeah, and you'll oppose my next nomination because its name does not start with your favourite letter. Anyways, "recently" is subjective. I disagree a gap of half a year qualifies. Calling BS. Other recurring FA topics like Snooker games, Super Mario, etc. do not wait a year each to go on the main page.--NØ 17:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

What counts is what the coordinators think and we rarely turn down nominations. Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. I'll stick to "potential requests" from now on to avoid this annoying targeting. Although I'd continue to be concerned about other users having to deal with this ridiculous stuff.—NØ 22:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I feel like this is you trying to start drama Great Mercian (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

How to format a re-run nom page

G'day all, I was hoping to nom Bill Denny for a re-run on 6 December (the 150th anniversary of his birth). His TFA was seven years ago. If this is permitted, how is the nom page formatted? If I follow the normal nom process, it loads the old TFA nom page. Is there a standard way of doing this? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

G'day @Jimfbleak and Wehwalt: forgot to ping you about this and the one below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is an approved procedure as such, but if you follow the TFAR procedure it generates an edit page initially. I suggest making changes such as most recent article etc before saving. The maximum blurb length is now 1025 characters, not sure what it was then. Alternatively, you could create the request with a dummy character in the article name and then move to the correct title. Also pinging Gog the Mild Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Query about a triple TFA

G'day, all three articles of the featured topic Hrabri-class submarines: Hrabri-class submarine, Yugoslav submarine Hrabri and Yugoslav submarine Nebojša, are now featured. Would it be possible to run them together in one TFA (preferably on 5 April next year, the 95th anniversary of their arrival in Yugoslav waters)? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is something I would support. In October, there are seven TFA articles scheduled that are part of FTs, and while I appreciate that yours have a single date connection, it's very unusual to run multiple FAs at TFA for any reason, although it has happened (eg two presidential candidates). Unless Wehwalt or Gog the Mild take a different view, I would decline to do this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope, and one that I'd not want to embark upon after the latest dustup at the main page over Queen Elizabeth, which left odd implications ... I'll leave it at that ... but it feels like our hands are a bit tied on doing anything creative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the Elizabeth matter at its heart was an objection to subject matter which would not be present here. However, I agree with Jimfbleak that multiple TFAs should be reserved for very rare occasions of important significance and this would not qualify. Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all, understood. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 17:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Corydon

... is on the pending template for next July 9, but

WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Z1720 you've listed Johnson for next September (2023), but I can't update or respond to TFA queries on that without (now departed) Ottava or Malleus. I only wrote the TS portions. If it is to run then, we need to find a literary editor who is willing to go through and check for any issues that may have crept in over the decades. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:URFA/2020. When I make the TFA nom, would you like me to post a notice on some Wikiprojects, asking for a literary-editor to re-review the material? That way anything that is added between now and a potential TFA run can also be checked. Z1720 (talk

) 16:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Better would be we start looking for someone now to help me with this article; I'd initiate some posts (wherever), but I'm in a real real-life crunch 'til mid-November ... any ideas who might help here? I am not a literary type ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't typically write literary FAs, either. My best guess is to ask those that helped with Rowling or Chinua Achebe. I'll put out some messages over the coming days and see if I can get some help. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect Johnson is a whole different realm than Rowling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Future April Fool's TFA

An FA I recently nominated, Boring Lava Field, might someday make a decent candidate for an April Fool's TFA. Just leaving a notice. ceranthor 19:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I agree that this might be a good article to run on April 1. Would you be interested in nominating it at TFA? Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing! I believe someone wrote up a TFA blurb on it already. Let me look and see. ceranthor 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Added for April 1st! ceranthor 23:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

North East MRT line

Hello, I'm aware this might be slightly late, but may I request for North East MRT line to be featured on 20 June 2023? It's just newly promoted and I hope it can be featured on the front page to coincide with its 20th anniversary. ZKang123 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If you compose a suitable blurb and post it here, I will change it. Remember to keep under 1025 characters of actual prose. Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here we go.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

North East MRT line

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2023 by Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Alstom Metropolis trains stabled in Sengkang Depot

The North East Line is a high-capacity Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line in Singapore. Operated by SBS Transit, the 20-kilometre (12 mi) line runs from

Punggol station in the northeast via Chinatown, Little India, Serangoon and Hougang. Completed at S$5 billion, 14 of 16 stations of the line began operations on 20 June 2003. Buangkok station opened on 15 January 2006, and Woodleigh station began operations on 20 June 2011. A one-station extension to Punggol Coast station is expected to be completed in 2024. Alstom rolling stock – C751A and C751C – runs on the line, which is fully automated using the moving-block Alstom Urbalis 300 CBTC signalling system. The stations are wheelchair-accessible, and most of them are Civil Defence shelters designed to withstand airstrikes and chemical attacks. 18 artworks are displayed across its 16 stations as part of the Art-in-Transit programme. (Full article...

)

• Most recent similar article(s):
• Main editors: ZKang123
• Promoted: 2023
• Reasons for nomination: 20th anniversary of line opening
• Support as nominator. ZKang123 (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Esplanade MRT station

I apologize for this late request (again), but is it possible to feature Esplanade MRT station anytime from 16 to 19 August? I hoped to showcase another Singapore-related work and the station serves near Suntec City where Wikimania is held, so plenty of participants might benefit from learning information about this station.

The blurb has already been composed.

Esplanade MRT station

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2023 by Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Exit C of the station

Esplanade MRT station is an underground

Suntec Singapore Convention and Exhibition Centre. Esplanade station is linked to the nearby City Hall station via CityLink Mall, an underground retail development. The station was initially announced as Convention Centre station in 1999 as part of the Marina MRT line, which was later incorporated into Stage 1 of the CCL. The station was renamed Esplanade through a public poll in 2005. The station opened on 7 April 2010, with provisions to interchange with a future MRT line. Esplanade station features an Art-in-Transit artwork A Piece of Ice-Clear Heart by Lim Mu Hue, a collage of woodblock prints featuring scenes of shadow puppetry and other traditional performances. (Full article...

)

• Most recent similar article(s):
• Main editors: ZKang123
• Promoted: 7 July 2023
• Reasons for nomination: As Wikimania is being held from 16–19 August 2023, I hoped to showcase another Singapore-related work during this time. In addition, the station serves said location of Suntec City, so plenty of participants might benefit from learning information of this station.
• Support as nominator. ZKang123 (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry ZKang123, but August has been fully scheduled and the nominators notified. A neat idea, but just a little too late. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright noted. I will probably keep it for 7 April next year, which is the opening date of the station/ ZKang123 (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You probably know this, but in that case it is a good idea to list it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@ZKang123: A gap has opened, so I am in the process of scheduling this for 16 August. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hope you will consider. Thank you. ZKang123 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild is scheduling August. Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from a first-time nominator

Please forgive my ignorance, but as a first-time TFA nominator, I find the instructions regarding the blurb somewhat confusing. Should I copy the text I used to introduce the article at the FA nomination? Most of the TFAs I've seen appear to be snippets from the lead. — Golden ^talk 11:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just answering for myself, Wehwalt and Gog may handle this differently, but: in addition to the

WP:TFAP nominations for Featured Articles promoted in the last few years that haven't run at TFA before, unless there's a conflict with another request: two articles requested for the same day, or in the same narrow category. (Multiple requests from one editor should probably go through TFAR, and may get extra scrutiny.) You can avoid the blurb requirement by putting the nomination up at TFAP instead of TFAR (and then someone else will write the blurb when the article is selected for TFA). - Dank (push to talk

) 15:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, if a nominator doesn't make at least an effort to draft a blurb I am unlikely to consider a TFAP. I would really want to see it formally moved to TFAR for some community scrutiny.

I usually cut and paste an article's lead, on the basis that by definition it contains all of the main features of the article, then try to trim it down. Then skim the article to check that the result is reasonable. Hence my blurbs at least are likely to read as snippets from the lead. There are, I am sure, other entirely satisfactory approaches. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. I was confused about whether I needed to write the blurb myself or simply copy and paste the lead. Fortunately, a friend helped me by nominating it for me. — Golden ^talk 15:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

City Hall and Raffles Place featured on the same day

I know this is a bit of an unconventional request, but I want to put up a paired TFA for 12 December, which is the opening of City Hall and Raffles Place stations which are cross-platform interchanges on the Singapore MRT network. I've prepared the blurb as shown, similar to Caesar Hull and Paterson Hughes and Corona Borealis and Corona Australis. The picture will have another updated shot of Raffles Place station.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Coordinator comment As the scheduling coordinator for December, I've talked it over with my colleagues and per the instructions at
  WP:TFA/R, we would have no objections to running the two articles, but please note there is another TFA/R nomination for December 12, and we express no preference between them.--Wehwalt (talk
  ) 19:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

City Hall MRT station

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 12, 2023 by Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Exit B of City Hall station (top) and Exit A of Raffles Place station (bottom)

The

Civil Defence shelters. City Hall station features a mural by Simon Wong which depicts government buildings in the area, while two murals at Raffles Place station by Lim Sew Yong and Thang Kiang How depict scenes of Singapore's history. (See City Hall MRT station and Raffles Place MRT station

.)

• Most recent similar article(s):
• Main editors: ZKang123
• Promoted: 2023
• Reasons for nomination: Opening date of the stations. (Notes: The image will be updated to include a new satisfactory photo of Raffles Place station entrance Updated with double image.)
• Support as nominator. ZKang123 (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment We'd be grateful if community members would express a preference between the two nominations for December 12.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think, since this nomination was first (?), and the double article is intriguing, that I would prefer this to be the 12 December TFA, though I have no strong opinion. Also, opening dates are more significant than closing dates imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this one per what Eddie said on the opening date and double article. S5A-0043^Talk 08:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Blurb?

I don't understand the nomination instructions. Step III says, "For Featured Articles promoted on or after January 1, 2016, copy in the blurb that appears on the talk page of the FAC nomination". My FAC nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fleetwood Park Racetrack/archive1) doesn't have a talk page. Unclear what I'm supposed to be doing here. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Blurbs were prepared for some articles and placed on the FAC's talk page. So it there is one there, use it as the blurb for the TFA/R nomination. If there isn't one, don't worry about it, just prepare your own blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know this was a rule. Was there a discussion surrounding that? Panini! • 🥪 01:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a rule. It's letting people know that there are prepared blurbs for some articles, mostly of the 2015 to 2019 (I believe) era (by FA promotion), mostly prepared by Dank and/or Johnboddie. There's no requirement that they be used. However, blurb writing is not fun and given the choice between writing one and having one ready-made, most people are happy to see the ready-made one. Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You might want to update the instructions... RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking they could use a redraft for a while. When I'm all caught up (I just scheduled December), I'll spend some time preparing a draft for community comment. Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this ... Yes, there are a lot of talk pages of individual FACs that have pre-written blurbs ... John and I (and Gog and Wehwalt and a few others) used to do them after the FAC promotion (if no one else beat us to it), but since January 2021, we've usually been waiting until they're mentioned in a TFA context before we do the blurbs. It does look like the instructions need updating ... thx for offering, Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and amended the instructions, the diff is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)