Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
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. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
– Check TFAR nominations for dead links – Alt text |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
| ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from July 1 to July 31.
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific 1 | |||||
Nonspecific 2 | |||||
December 21 | 2012 phenomenon | 4 | Date relevance; indeed the date is the topic. Widely covered | 9 | 0 |
December 24 | Cosima Wagner | 3 | Date relevance; 175th birthday anniversary | 9 | 1 |
December 27 | Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō | 2 | Date relevance; 90th anniversary of commissioning | 4 | 0 |
January 1 | Vidya Balan | 3 | birthday, nom's first TFA, no recent acting bios | 1 | 0 |
January 5 | Kenneth Walker | 3 | 70th anniversary of death; 1yr FA | 5 | 0 |
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.
Nonspecific date nominations
Nonspecific date 1
Nonspecific date 2
Specific date nominations
December 21
2012 phenomenon
If there is a date to post this on the main page, it would be this one. Serendipodous 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please calculate a point tally and add to the chart above so this article will show in the TOC. I've linked the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have corrected the date here so that the table of contents works. I see you added three points to the chart: please specify here how you arrive at 3 points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see date relevance for one, promoted over a year ago for another one and widely-covered (32 interwikis) for a third point. Didn't look at the FA nominator's previous TFAs, if any, but I arrived at that score in about no seconds. GRAPPLE X 01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah; those three. I was thinking of adding unusual material as well, but I wasn't sure how often this sort of topic had been covered. Serendipodous 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, still not seeing it. I thought widely-covered was two points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it deserves more than 1 point for date-relevance. Since the article is about 21 December of this year, it should count at least as much as a 100-year anniversary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 15:57, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah; those three. I was thinking of adding unusual material as well, but I wasn't sure how often this sort of topic had been covered. Serendipodous 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see date relevance for one, promoted over a year ago for another one and widely-covered (32 interwikis) for a third point. Didn't look at the FA nominator's previous TFAs, if any, but I arrived at that score in about no seconds. GRAPPLE X 01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have corrected the date here so that the table of contents works. I see you added three points to the chart: please specify here how you arrive at 3 points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. - The supposed date significance is in fact an error. The date the Mayan's "predicted" already occurred several months ago. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- No. People who make this claim really, really don't understand what a leap year is. A calendar doesn't "fall behind" another calendar because it doesn't have a leap year. That's like saying that we lose an hour a year because of daylight savings time. Weird thing is, the Long Count doesn't even count years in the first place. The correlation between the Long Count and the Gregorian calendar has been established within a ~48 hour window for decades. Serendipodous 01:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Well, if we ran anything else when this article was a valid choice we'd be, to quote Dumbledore, "nincompoops". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The 20th is okay too, very well argued. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support this as a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'm guessing everyone will be looking this up that day anyway, may as well make it convenient. —Torchiest talkedits 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Crisco and Torchiest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Of course this should run around the time when people claim that transformation/doom will come, but might people consider moving it up to December 20? As I've said here before, "As the article states (here), some people have actually asked NASA whether they should kill themselves before the 'event'. I think the more people read this article, the better, because they're less likely to take this garbage seriously. Run it on December 20, I say, when the media attention is at its peak but before people feel the urgent need to off themselves." If this article is scheduled for December 21, it won't appear on the main page until the day is already partly over in parts of the world. In contrast, if the article runs on December 20, it will be visible before and during the day of fake doom. Even after it moves out of the TFA slot, it will appear on the main page as one of the the "recent featured articles" links under the TFA, so it will be visible throughout December 21 in every time zone. That might actually maximize visibility.
- And, as User:Sadads said, "The article will likely need some significant changes on the day or directly following the day because of significant news coverage surrounding the event." If I were Serendipodous, I would find it a real pain to deal with that and a main page appearance at exactly the same time. A. Parrot (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sensible suggestion. We've had this issue before because, to get the points, one has to put it on the exact day; if Serendipodous agrees that the day before is better, I suggest we grant the points anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does make sense. My only concern is that Wikipedia might be accused of scaremongering if it posted before the actual day. Serendipodous 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- We have delegates who make the big bucks so they can make those decisions ... you might want to ping Raul654 (talk · contribs) on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does make sense. My only concern is that Wikipedia might be accused of scaremongering if it posted before the actual day. Serendipodous 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sensible suggestion. We've had this issue before because, to get the points, one has to put it on the exact day; if Serendipodous agrees that the day before is better, I suggest we grant the points anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support since it's the long-held known date of the end of the universe, presumably it should have a date score in excess of unity. However, as it was the Mayans who decided this was our D-Day, the article should be featured at D-Day in Mayan-land, so on 20 December..... then we can all update it until, say, 1800 GMT, when the world will end, and interminable debates like this will be a mere blip in a blip in a blip of a microcosm of a pseudo-existence. Run it on the 20th. Good luck everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support for running this article the day before. I think we should be sensitive to the nature of the article's subject, which says that December 21 would not be a good day for visiting Wikipedia due to the apocalypse. December 20 is the day to run this, as A. Parrot and SandyGeorgia. If protocol was to run this article on the day of the event, then I would support that as a second choice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support per The Rambling Man's rationale. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support either date fine, though an evil gremlin on my shoulder is saying "run it on the 22nd!" Hee her! Montanabw(talk) 20:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support for the 22nd, per User:Raul654/archive25#God Hates Us All. 21st is okay too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support for running it on the 22nd. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Support for the 22nd . The 21st is also OK with me. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)- Per Serendipodous' cautions, changed to support for 21st (oppose for 22nd). 20th is also OK with me. Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to those suggesting the 22nd: If we posted this on the 22nd, and someone committed suicide on the 21st, chances are we'd be wondering if we could have stopped it, no? Serendipodous 09:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Changed my support to 21st (or 20th). Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support for 20th. Public attention to this nonsense is likely to peak the day beforehand, which fits nicely with running in on the 20th. I'm not comfortable with the 22nd; it's funnier, but I think an educational role is best served by helping raise understanding of the (complete lack of any) issue beforehand rather than afterwards, when it's a bit moot. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
December 24
Cosima Wagner
2 miserable points for her 175th birthday; she's classified under "Music biographies", and Gabriel Fauré was TFA on 4 November. Not quite "widely read" (19 other wikipedias). She was a very important and influential opera impresario, the first woman to wield such power in the musical theatre (and thoroughly nasty, too, but I suppose there are no points for that). Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - a thoughtful break from the Xmas brouhaha. An excellent article about a strong, influential woman in the world of opera. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support as in the FAC, and there are not many women that influential from the 19th century --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support . - I agree, this should get 3 points for a 175th. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - lovely article, nice time of year to run, good anniversary. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Anti-Semitic sentiments on Christmas Eve? No thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reporting the anti-Semtism of others is not the same as "anti-Semitic sentiments". We are not being invited to endorse or admire Frau Wagner, merely to understand something of her. But I can understand the reasons for your comment; let's see if others share your view. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I see - who would not? - why Modernist recoils at Cosima Wagner's anti-semitism, but this was one among many aspects of her character, and it would be a pity to blacklist the article on that account when the suggested date is so eminently suitable. Tim riley (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've added another interwiki link to the newly created Welsh language article about her (thank you Google Translate), but I only make it now 18 interwikis, i.e. 17 previously, not 19. I think you still need two more other-language stubs to get your two bonus points! BencherliteTalk 11:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are right; she will have to sail on with her threadbare points, and hope for the best. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Great article on a powerful woman. The anti-semitism is treated fairly and factually—no objection on those grounds. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, topics relating to women underrepresented on both Wikipedia generally and the Main Page specifically historically over time. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. As others have noted, TFAs on women are scarce, and women of influence at that date were rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment a really lovely article, the only comments, on a quick look, would be that the table of performances has no "row" and "col" scopes per WP:ACCESS and misuses bold text for emphasis per WP:BADEMPHASIS. An accompanying symbol and associated text would alleviate that issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've updated the table to include row headers and all scopes, as well as using the dagger to signify premières. I've also replaced all the misused html
<br>
tags with {{Unbulleted list}} which are much nicer for screen readers. @TRM: Would you check to see if it now meets the standard for accessibility? Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've updated the table to include row headers and all scopes, as well as using the dagger to signify premières. I've also replaced all the misused html
December 27
Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō
Two points for the 90th anniversary of her commissioning and 19 interwiki links. It's been over a month since the last warship TFA so no deductions there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, good date, also educational, encyclopedic, and historic value. — Cirt (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. - Good month: Pearl Harbor, good day: 90th anniversary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, good for anniversary, moved another pending battleship to later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support solid article, good to have something on an Eastern power. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
January 1
Vidya Balan
Nominated by Smarojit (talk · contribs) in this diff. 1 point for date relevance (birthday), 1 point for nominator's first TFA (nominator only has one FA credit), 1 point for no actor/actress biographies since mid-August 2012. 3 points BencherliteTalk 09:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
January 5
Kenneth Walker
3 points: Two points for date relevance, being the 70th anniversary of the battle in which he won his medal of honour, and one point for being promoted in July 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. A fine article, suitable for Main Page representation on the suggested date unless there is an American military biography featured previously with too little separation in time. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, agree with analysis by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs), above, as well as date relevance. — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, convincing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, there's a US aviator who also won the Medal of Honor scheduled for December 4. Don't know how that influences "points" but looks like a run on "US aviators who won the Medal of Honor". MathewTownsend (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- See the TFAR page instructions at the top of this page-- the date requested is more than a month from the last one. Still, considering the similarity and how few of same we (might?) have, I agree it's unfortunate that they can't be spaced out more; there must be other significant dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)