Bencherlite (talk | contribs) →William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896: oppose and alternative |
Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) →November 1: several opposes, diversity issues |
||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:*Last episode was at least "Last Temptation of Krust" in May. The last TV-related topic was a character, Poppy Meadow, in August. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
:*Last episode was at least "Last Temptation of Krust" in May. The last TV-related topic was a character, Poppy Meadow, in August. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::*Thanks. That seems fine. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
::*Thanks. That seems fine. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
=== November 1 === |
|||
==== Stephen Crane ==== |
|||
<div style="width: 55%; background-color: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #cef2e0; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> |
|||
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1.5em;"> |
|||
[[File:SCrane2.JPG|140px|border|alt=Formal portrait of Stephen Crane taken in Washington, D.C., about March 1896]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div> |
|||
'''[[Stephen Crane]]''' (1871–1900) was an American novelist, short story writer, poet and journalist. Prolific throughout his short life, he wrote notable works in the [[literary realism|Realist]] tradition as well as early examples of American [[Naturalism (literature)|Naturalism]] and [[Impressionism (literature)|Impressionism]]. Crane's first novel was the 1893 [[Bowery]] tale ''[[Maggie: A Girl of the Streets]]''. He won international acclaim for his 1895 [[American Civil War|Civil War]] novel ''[[The Red Badge of Courage]]'', written without any battle experience. Late that year he accepted an offer to cover the [[Spanish-American War]] as a [[war correspondent]]. As he waited in [[Jacksonville, Florida]] for passage to Cuba, he met [[Cora Crane|Cora Taylor]], the madam of a brothel, with whom he would have a lasting relationship. Plagued by financial difficulties and ill health, Crane died of [[tuberculosis]] at the age of 28. Although recognized primarily for ''The Red Badge of Courage'', Crane is also known for short stories such as "[[The Open Boat]]", "[[The Blue Hotel]]", "[[The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky]]", and ''[[The Monster (novella)|The Monster]]''. Stylistically, his works are characterized by vivid intensity, distinctive [[dialect]]s, and [[irony]]. Common themes involve fear, spiritual crises and social isolation. His writing made a deep impression on 20th century writers, most prominent among them [[Ernest Hemingway]], and is thought to have inspired the [[Modernism|Modernists]] and the [[Imagism|Imagists]]. ([[Stephen Crane|'''more...''']])</div></div> |
|||
* Writer on birthday, interesting bio, too bad that some will have to be trimmed ;) --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' important author. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' because too similar to the recent TFA ''[[Pilgrim at Tinker Creek]]'' - both are about American lit; he's a naturalist as is Dillard, and both written by the same editor. I would be more than happy to support this at a later date and I think more thought should be put into these suggestions because it's not nice to have to oppose. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 18:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* Nominator needs to calculate points for us to reflect any recent similar TFAs.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:Needs OCLC numbers for every book written before the 1970s before I'll support.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 03:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' Per Rschen7754. I think the connection to PaTC is reaching, to be honest. I looked through the past few months and I don't see any recent similar TFAs. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 22:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:Yeah and they'd be roughly a month and a half apart. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 22:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' This is a very important writer, <s>neglected on wikipedia,</s> way above the level of ''[[Pilgrim at Tinker Creek]]'' IMO. And writing about an important era (the Civil War) in American history. So should be on the main page on his birthday. [[User:MathewTownsend|MathewTownsend]] ([[User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]]) 23:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:To be fair, there are four Crane-related FAs, two of which I believe have been featured on the mainpage. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:red">yllo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">submarine</span>]])</small> 13:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::Sorry, you're right. Doesn't change my "Support" though. According to [[Ernest Hemingway]]: "The good writers are [[Henry James]], Stephen Crane, and [[Mark Twain]]. That's not the order they're good in. There is no order for good writers." [[User:MathewTownsend|MathewTownsend]] ([[User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]]) 14:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:::You'll get no argument from me as to Crane's notability; I'm a huge fan, hence the four FAs. I'm neither opposing nor supporting this nomination, I just thought your comment strange considering. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:red">yllo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">submarine</span>]])</small> 15:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Yes, I was unaware. I've not been following FA/FAC for very long. [[User:MathewTownsend|MathewTownsend]] ([[User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]]) 15:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' because too similar to the recent TFA ''[[Pilgrim at Tinker Creek]]'' on September 17, per Truthkeeper. Fine in the New Year. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>'''Support'''</s> as ''Tinker Creek'' is a book while this is a biography. Similar, but not too similar, IMHO. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 16:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:Agree with Crisco. Crane was not "a naturalist as is Dillard". The word "[[Naturalism (literature)|naturalist]]" is being misapplied. For Crane the word refers to his introduction of realism, not that he concentrated on writing about nature. "Naturalism was a literary movement taking place from the 1880s to 1940s that used detailed realism to suggest that social conditions, heredity, and environment had inescapable force in shaping human character." Is this the same as Dillard? Their writing is not similar, nor their topics, nor their level of fame and influence on literature. He was primarily a writer of fiction and did not write as ''Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'' is described: "Told from a first-person point of view, the book details an unnamed narrator's explorations near her home, and various contemplations on nature and life". [[User:MathewTownsend|MathewTownsend]] ([[User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]]) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:: I'm sorry MathewTownsend but I have to disagree. I have on my computer desktop a Cambridge Companion book titled ''American Realism and Naturalism'' with a chapter devoted to Crane. In American lit., naturalism (which doesn't necessarily have to do with nature, but sometimes does) began pre-Civil war with [[Henry David Thoreau]] and the [[Transcendentalism|Transcendendalists]] (though they were the forerunners), took off fully with Crane, Twain, Dreiser, Sinclair and others after the Civil war, continued with Hemingway (see "[[Big Two-Hearted River]]") and Faulkner mid-century and certainly is seen in Dillard. All this is beside the point though; I made a very pointy oppose, for which I feel awful to the point that I will send Maria email to apologize yet again, because I feel this page is being misused. How many articles do we have about American literature? How many editors do we have writing about American literature? These are considerations to keep in mind. Furthermore, since when does the primary editor have the obligation to write the blurb and to provide OLCL numbers (as requested above), particularly when editors are simultaneously being accused of ownership issues. Something's very rotten in Denmark is the point I'm trying to make; and quite frankly this is an issue that's gone once to RfAR. In my view another trip there might not be a bad idea. This page should be used for editors to request main page appearance for articles to which they've contributed, not to be used as a place to post willy-nilly without thinking about long-term ramifications. I didn't support ''Tinker Creek'' and had that not run, I'd be happy to see Crane go now. I believe Crane should go and am upset to see the mess that's been made here. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::: You decry concerns of ownership and then immediately express the view that proposals for main page appearance should only be made by significant contributors to articles. Obvious issue, right? Any wonder that there are calls for this culture to end? [[User:Br'er Rabbit|Br'er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br'er Rabbit|talk]]) 19:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: No, Jack. I've never used this page and Gerda put a message on my page inviting me to join the conversation. You're letting your personal animus get in the way of seeing the obvious problems: Austen nominated now when a major anniversary looms in four months (maybe the author knows about that?); British royalty nominated now when another major anniversary looms (where's the spot for that request?). A major American author nominated a few weeks after another book by an American author, when today yet another book is being run. We simply don't have that many lit. pages and they need to be spread out. I don't care if you change this place or not, but some kind of order or thought needs to be put into the nominations - order and thought that seems currently to be lacking. You can decry the ownership issue all you like, but if you have issues with it, try bringing forward solutions better than those that have been brought forward. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 19:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: Sorry to hear about your private concerns. - To these facts: Austen was nominated now, but can very well appear on the anniversary if that is what gets consensus, 2013 that is. If so, I don't see why a male author and a book by a female US author should not appear within the same quarter, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: {{ec}}On the contrary, I think Gerda has done a great job nominating articles (which very few people are willing to do) and deserves to be thanked--not criticised. Raul and Dabomb need our help, and we should be encouraging people who try to {{diff|Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests|prev|479134465|make their lives easier}}. I encourage anyone unhappy with the job a volunteer here is doing to step up and try to do it better. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: As to whether this is too close to have articles generally related to American literature together--that's a matter of personal opinion, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. We just have to wait for more people to show up here and form a consensus. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: My name's not Jack. Note that I've not supported this TFA suggestion. This is a forum for discussing potential TFA and... they're being discussed. And don't be attacking Gerda. She's sincere, mellow, and we've a paucity of good female participants on this project. [[User:Br'er Rabbit|Br'er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br'er Rabbit|talk]]) 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::: (blushing, again) --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 20:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Regarding Crisco's comment above about one article being a biography and the other about a book: (see footnote 5 above) "Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar. Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, Atom and Noble gas." [[User:MathewTownsend|MathewTownsend]] ([[User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]]) 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:*Indeed. In this case I find it dissimilar enough to not be an issue. If this were a novel and then a short story came along, there might be pause, but novel and author are different enough I think — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::*We have, in the past, viewed a creator and then a creation as not similar, assuming that they are not related (i.e. don't run ''The Red Badge of Courage'' right after Crane.)--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 14:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' [[User:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">Pumpkin</font><font color="darkblue">Sky</font>]] [[User talk:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">talk</font>]] 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Truthkeeper88 and Johnbod...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''': if [[Ian Fleming]] appears on October 23 (see above), that will make two male author/journalists on the mainpage in as many weeks. Seeing as how this nom already has several opposes, I think the other one should take precedence. Not to mention, the 50th Bond anniversary is surely more important than Crane's 141st birthday. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:red">yllo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">submarine</span>]])</small> 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' as Ian Fleming should take priority. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Fleming is scheduled, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:*I'm not sure why this is still here. 5 opposes, 4 supports, an extremely similar article scheduled eight days before this is proposed to run. Surely this nomination should be removed? <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:red">yllo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">submarine</span>]])</small> 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::*Not so sure, do you think two authors of different eras are "extremely similar"? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Two anglo-male author/journalists featured on the mainpage within 8 days? Yes, they're extremely similar. This nom should be removed so that a more diverse article can take its place. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:red">yllo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">submarine</span>]])</small> 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::*This needs to go...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 00:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' given Ian Fleming's selection. Gerda, please bring this back some other time. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 08:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== November 4 === |
=== November 4 === |
Revision as of 08:13, 19 October 2012
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.
The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from July 1 to July 31. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection.
Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns.
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Article | Reason | Primary author(s) | Added by (if different) |
early July | Alpine ibex | Why | LittleJerry | Dank |
July 1 | Flag of Canada | Why | Gary | Dank |
July 3 | Maple syrup | Why | Nikkimaria | Dank |
July 4 | Statue of Liberty | Why | Wehwalt | Dank and Wehwalt |
July 18 | John Glenn | Why | Hawkeye7, Kees08 | Dank |
July 19 | John D. Whitney | Why | Ergo Sum | |
July 21 | Ernest Hemingway | Why | Victoriaearle | Dank |
August 10 | Operation Boomerang | Why | Nick-D | Harizotoh9 |
August 11 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T2 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 12 | Worlds (Porter Robinson album) | Why | Skyshifter, TechnoSquirrel69 | Skyshifter |
August 16 | Abu Nidal | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
August 19 | Battle of Winwick | Why | Gog the Mild | |
August 25 | 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger (rerun, first TFA was August 15, 2016) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 26 | Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 | Why | Gog the Mild | |
August 30 | Segundo Romance | Why | Erick | Harizotoh9 |
August 31 | Rachelle Ann Go | Why | Pseud 14 | |
September | Avenue Range Station massacre | Why (rerun, first TFA was September 3, 2018) | Peacemaker67 | |
September 6 | Liz Truss | Why | Tim O'Doherty | Sheila1988 ... but see below, July 26, 2025 |
September 13 | Amarte Es un Placer (album) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 16 | 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (rerun, first TFA was April 23, 2014) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
September 21 | Artur Phleps | Why (rerun, first TFA was November 29, 2013) | Peacemaker67 | |
October | Dobroslav Jevđević | Why (re-run, first TFA was March 9, 2013) | Peacemaker67 | |
October 1 | The Founding Ceremony of the Nation | Why | Wehwalt | |
October 4 | Olmec colossal heads | Why | Simon Burchell | Dank |
October 11 | Funerary art | Why | Johnbod | Dank |
October 14 | Brandenburg-class battleship | Why | Parsecboy | Parsecboy and Dank |
October 15 | Battle of Glasgow, Missouri | Why | HF | |
October 17 | 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) (re-run, first TFA was June 19, 2014) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
October 19 | "Bad Romance" | Why | FrB.TG | |
October 21 | Takin' It Back | Why | MaranoFan | |
October 22 | The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes | Why | Your Power, ZooBlazer | |
October 25 | Fusō-class battleship | Why | Sturmvogel_66 and Dank | Peacemaker67 |
October 25 | Katy Perry | Why | SNUGGUMS | 750h+ |
October 29 | 1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game | Why | PCN02WPS | |
October 30 | Cucurbita | Why | Sminthopsis84 and Chiswick Chap | Dank |
October 31 | The Smashing Pumpkins | Why | WesleyDodds | Dank |
November | Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
November 3 | 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election | Why | Elli | |
November 6 | Russian battleship Poltava (1894) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 11 | Mells War Memorial | Why | HJ Mitchell | Ham II |
November 17 | SMS Friedrich Carl | Why | Parsecboy | Peacemaker67 |
November 18 | Donkey Kong Country | Why | TheJoebro64, Jaguar | TheJoebro64 |
November 21 | MLS Cup 1999 | Why | SounderBruce | |
November 22 | Donkey Kong 64 | Why | czar | |
November 27 | Interstate 182 | Why | SounderBruce | |
November 28 | Battle of Cane Hill | Why | Hog Farm | |
December 3 | PlayStation (console) | Why | Jaguar | Dank |
December 13 | Taylor Swift | Why (rerun, first TFA was August 23, 2019) | Ronherry | FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS |
December 19 | SMS Niobe | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
December 20 | Sonic the Hedgehog 2 | Why | TheJoebro64 | Sheila1988 |
December 25 | A Very Trainor Christmas | Why | MaranoFan | Sheila1988 |
2025: | ||||
January 8 | Elvis Presley | Why | PL290, DocKino, Rikstar | Dank |
January 9 | Title (album) | Why | MaranoFan | |
January 22 | Caitlin Clark | Why | Sportzeditz | Dank |
January 27 | The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia | Why | ||
March 18 | Edward the Martyr | Why | Amitchell125 | Sheila1988 |
March 26 | Pierre Boulez | Why | Dmass | Sheila1988 |
April 12 | Dolly de Leon | Why | Pseud 14 | |
April 25 | 1925 FA Cup Final | Why | Kosack | Dank |
May | 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
May 5 | Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
June 1 | Total Recall (1990 film) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 8 | Barbara Bush | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 26 | Donkey Kong Land | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 29 | Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
July 7 | Gustav Mahler | Why | Brianboulton | Dank |
July 7 | Empire of the Sultans | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
July 8 | Edward the Martyr | Why | Dudley Miles | Harizotoh9 |
July 14 | William Hanna | Why | Rlevse | Dank |
July 26 | Liz Truss | Why | Tim O'Doherty | Tim O'Doherty and Dank |
July 31 | Battle of Warsaw (1705) | Why | Imonoz | Harizotoh9 |
August 23 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 30 | Late Registration | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
August 31 | Japanese battleship Yamato | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 5 | Peter Sellers | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 6 | Hurricane Ophelia (2005) | Why | Cyclonebiskit | Harizotoh9 |
September 30 or October 1 | Hoover Dam | Why | NortyNort, Wehwalt | Dank |
October 1 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
October 3 | Spaghetti House siege | Why | SchroCat | Dank |
October 10 | Tragic Kingdom | Why | EA Swyer | Harizotoh9 |
October 16 | Angela Lansbury | Why | Midnightblueowl | MisawaSakura |
October 18 | Royal Artillery Memorial | Why | HJ Mitchell | Ham II |
November 1 | Matanikau Offensive | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 20 | Nuremberg trials | Why | buidhe | harizotoh9 |
December 25 | Ho Ho Ho (album) | Why | harizotoh9 |
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific 1 | |||||
Nonspecific 2 | |||||
Nonspecific 3 | Hadji Ali | 2 | 2 for no similar article appearing within six months | 3 | 0 |
Nonspecific 4 | |||||
Nonspecific 5 | Porbeagle | 2 | 0 | ||
October 29 | Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy) | 3 | Date relevance, nomination by significant contributor, and no related article featured within 3 months. | 8 | 1 |
November 1 | Stephen Crane | Birthday | 5 | 4 | |
November 4 | Gabriel Fauré | 5 | Day of death, no article similar in over 6 months(composers, not operas), widely covered | 1 | 0 |
November 5 | Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot) | day of death | 4 | 0 | |
November 6 | William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 | Day significant | 2 | 0 | |
November 13 | Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania) | Day significant -- anniversary of date listed on National Register of Historic Places and as National Historic Landmark | 2 | 0 | |
November 17 | Metroid Prime | 5 | Tenth anniversary, 2008 FA, nomination by significant contributor | 3 | 0 |
November 20 | Windsor Castle | 4 | 20th anniversary of the fire; widely covered topic | 1 | 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
Nonspecific date 3
Hadji Ali
- suggested for nonspecific date. One point for unusual topic not covered elsewhere. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nomination Mathew. Shouldn't it be three points – one for diversity and two more for no similar article appearing within six months? The question mark is because the scope of the standard is not sparklingly clear. Certainly nothing "similar" has been featured... ever. But if broadly construed, there have been actors and musicians one could I suppose classify as also being "performance artists".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would suggest three points, as well, but I'm somewhat biased in that I really want to see it on the main page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nomination Mathew. Shouldn't it be three points – one for diversity and two more for no similar article appearing within six months? The question mark is because the scope of the standard is not sparklingly clear. Certainly nothing "similar" has been featured... ever. But if broadly construed, there have been actors and musicians one could I suppose classify as also being "performance artists".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support x2. Awesome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Very well written article on a very interesting subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support as fun. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment blurb is only 840 characters, about 2/3rds the appropriate length. Running a blurb that is too short messes up the balance of the sections on the main page. And "diversity" only wins a point when it's in a specified FA category, see above; this is a "culture and society" article so is 2 points. BencherliteTalk 21:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- To Bencherlite - please see Raul's footnote 5 above: "Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar. Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, Atom and Noble gas." MathewTownsend (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Mathew, I don't know why you feel the need to lecture me about "similarity" when my issue is with "diversity", as I thought I had made clear by using the word "diversity" not "similarity". To save you the effort of reading the instructions once more: "Subject underrepresented at WP:FA:[4] 1 point". FN4 is: "The category where the article is listed at WP:FA has fewer than 50 featured articles. The categories which currently qualify are: Awards, decorations and vexillology; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Education; Engineering and technology; Food and drink; Geology and geophysics; Health and medicine; Language and linguistics; Mathematics; Philosophy and psychology." This article is in "culture and society" i.e. no bonus point for "diversity". I have no issue with the two points claimed for "similarity", which is why I said "2 points" since 3 points claimed less 1 point wrongly claimed makes 2 points. Hope this makes sense now. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, I believe Raul's footnote and the evaluation of -Fuhghettaboutit and User:Crisco 1492 . Just my view. I'm not sure what special knowledge you have over theirs. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- The ability to realise that the points for "similarity" and "diversity" are calculated in different ways, perhaps? It really isn't that difficult. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- yes, it is that difficult. Meant to kept newbies out perhaps? So the old crew runs everything according to rules where some FAs are on a sekret list never to be on the main page. Seems incredibly stupid to me. But then, I'm not part of the "old crew" that runs everything according to obscure rules. Of course, the "director for life" hasn't logged in for over a month. Are you his mouthpiece? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really worth arguing about whether this should get 2 points or 3 points? Pretty much all the non-specifics with several net supports get their chance these days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not oppposing its selection, but if the rules are misinterpreted on this nomination without someone pointing out the error, we risk confusion in the future on a nomination where it might be more important e.g. where there are competing nominations for the same date. As there is no consensus to do away with the point system, we might as well get it right. BencherliteTalk 20:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but insulting each other probably won't bring about an agreement on this issue any sooner. I think you two should scale back the hostility a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to respond to him further on this topic, in fact. BencherliteTalk 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but insulting each other probably won't bring about an agreement on this issue any sooner. I think you two should scale back the hostility a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not oppposing its selection, but if the rules are misinterpreted on this nomination without someone pointing out the error, we risk confusion in the future on a nomination where it might be more important e.g. where there are competing nominations for the same date. As there is no consensus to do away with the point system, we might as well get it right. BencherliteTalk 20:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really worth arguing about whether this should get 2 points or 3 points? Pretty much all the non-specifics with several net supports get their chance these days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- yes, it is that difficult. Meant to kept newbies out perhaps? So the old crew runs everything according to rules where some FAs are on a sekret list never to be on the main page. Seems incredibly stupid to me. But then, I'm not part of the "old crew" that runs everything according to obscure rules. Of course, the "director for life" hasn't logged in for over a month. Are you his mouthpiece? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- The ability to realise that the points for "similarity" and "diversity" are calculated in different ways, perhaps? It really isn't that difficult. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, I believe Raul's footnote and the evaluation of -Fuhghettaboutit and User:Crisco 1492 . Just my view. I'm not sure what special knowledge you have over theirs. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Mathew, I don't know why you feel the need to lecture me about "similarity" when my issue is with "diversity", as I thought I had made clear by using the word "diversity" not "similarity". To save you the effort of reading the instructions once more: "Subject underrepresented at WP:FA:[4] 1 point". FN4 is: "The category where the article is listed at WP:FA has fewer than 50 featured articles. The categories which currently qualify are: Awards, decorations and vexillology; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Education; Engineering and technology; Food and drink; Geology and geophysics; Health and medicine; Language and linguistics; Mathematics; Philosophy and psychology." This article is in "culture and society" i.e. no bonus point for "diversity". I have no issue with the two points claimed for "similarity", which is why I said "2 points" since 3 points claimed less 1 point wrongly claimed makes 2 points. Hope this makes sense now. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, presuming any summary length issue can be solved. Intriguing bio; nice graphic.hamiltonstone (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 4
Nonspecific date 5
Porbeagle
- Support PumpkinSky talk 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, no mushroom, no battleship, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The toolserver TFAR checklinks report shows four dead links. BencherliteTalk 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cut two, updated two.PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. BencherliteTalk 16:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cut two, updated two.PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Specific date nominations
October 29
Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)
Three points: One point for date relevance (three year anniversary of premiere), one point for being a significant contributor/never having an article as TFA, and one point for no television/film article featured within 3 months of the requested date. Recently promoted FA. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support very interesting topic. TBrandley 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose very boring topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Half the topics on here are more boring. I've never had one of my article's on the main page, and this article has 3 points. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wake up; it's a television show. It probably is less boring than School Rumble, but everything else on this page has them both beat by 1.6km ;) Interesting is, of course, subjective, but you would benefit from taking an interest in more interesting topics. nb: teh points are deprecated; artefacts of a prior paradigm. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Half the topics on here are more boring. I've never had one of my article's on the main page, and this article has 3 points. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. In theory any encyclopedic topic can be a featured article, and any featured article can be TFA. There's no blanket ban on TV shows. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not; missed E&C 1, E&C 2, I take it? Anyhoo, doesn't make them “encyclopedic”. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- As you very well know, "encyclopedic" on Wikipedia is much more inclusive than in Britannica. I doubt Britannica would have an article on Chrisye, for example. Last I checked, they don't even have one on Jaws. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- DYK… taht teh unworded {{Unencyclopedic}}? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying we need such a template? Encyclopedic, to me, means that it presents a notable subject in a neutral tone and gives a general idea (covering the major points) of a topic, accessible to most readers. I'd much rather see this on the main page than deconstruction in its current state. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- click teh redlink; we had it, for years. But teh “Evil Inclusionists”™ deleted it. First tehy re-wrote, it, and re-wrote it, and renamed it, and re-wrote it, and after five TfDs and years of teh BATTLE tehy made it an unword. But I {{rescue}}d it: User:Jack Merridew/Unencyclopaedic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guarantee the majority of Wikipedia readers would rather read about an episode of a hit medical drama, than about some priest from 1452. I have no interest in working on other topics, and bringing television articles up to featured status is what I like to do on Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's just insult the featured article writers of topics we don't like, because, you know, Wikipedia has enough article writers anyway. Or not. Let's stop trolling, Jack. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- try setting a better example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes, because I troll all the time. You make me giggle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- bzzt; you did it, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes, because I troll all the time. You make me giggle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- try setting a better example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's just insult the featured article writers of topics we don't like, because, you know, Wikipedia has enough article writers anyway. Or not. Let's stop trolling, Jack. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guarantee the majority of Wikipedia readers would rather read about an episode of a hit medical drama, than about some priest from 1452. I have no interest in working on other topics, and bringing television articles up to featured status is what I like to do on Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- click teh redlink; we had it, for years. But teh “Evil Inclusionists”™ deleted it. First tehy re-wrote, it, and re-wrote it, and renamed it, and re-wrote it, and after five TfDs and years of teh BATTLE tehy made it an unword. But I {{rescue}}d it: User:Jack Merridew/Unencyclopaedic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying we need such a template? Encyclopedic, to me, means that it presents a notable subject in a neutral tone and gives a general idea (covering the major points) of a topic, accessible to most readers. I'd much rather see this on the main page than deconstruction in its current state. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- DYK… taht teh unworded {{Unencyclopedic}}? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- As you very well know, "encyclopedic" on Wikipedia is much more inclusive than in Britannica. I doubt Britannica would have an article on Chrisye, for example. Last I checked, they don't even have one on Jaws. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not; missed E&C 1, E&C 2, I take it? Anyhoo, doesn't make them “encyclopedic”. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support recent FA, new TFA contributor, we need a balance of material on the main page including TV programmes. BencherliteTalk 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support: If 13.74 million people cared to see the show, there definitely are people caring to read. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support; to encourage a wider range of material on the main page and attract traffic to our website. Suggestion: The article is stable and is a good candidate for list-defined references. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - These articles can't be ignored since large numbers of them are FAs. Agree with Crisco and Dianna. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Bencherlite & others. We need to keep trickling these tv articles out. But when did we last have one? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Last episode was at least "Last Temptation of Krust" in May. The last TV-related topic was a character, Poppy Meadow, in August. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
November 4
Gabriel Fauré
I think this should be on the main page. It has 5 points in total.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support the article, but the blurb doesn't need events he has in common with others (childhood, unspecific graduation), should better show what is his specialty. We began rehearsing his Requiem yesterday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure the table above says "Day of death, no article similar in over 6 months(composers, not operas), widely covered" but why should I have to look up there? When did he die anyway? Another dubious calculation of similarity "(composers, not operas)" - right, and with beards! When is the Glass opera just selected going as TFA? Fuller and better nominations please! Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
November (8) 5
Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot)
- as pending request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for 8 Nov, support for 5th. Bonfire Night is always on the 5th, if this runs three days late it will just confuse readers. 54.240.197.1 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Confuse? There was no bonfire, and the person died 8 Nov, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The point is that 5 November, aka "Bonfire Night" in the UK, is the day that the "Gunpowder plot" is commemorated, being the date in 1605 on which the conspiracy to blow up king and parliament was discovered. Percy is only really noteworthy because of his involvement with the plot; his death date three days later has no actual significance. For that reason I agree with the IP above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Confuse? There was no bonfire, and the person died 8 Nov, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for 8 Nov, support for 5th, as per Brianboulton's explanation. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for 8 Nov, support for 5th. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Changed to 5 Oct, all supports then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
November 6
William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896
- as pending request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Gerda, what does "as pending request" mean? Are you the nominator? The date relevance will not be obvious to everyone. When did we last have a similar article? NB Bryan's Cross of Gold speech from this same campaign was FA on July 9th. If you are going to nominate things, please do so properly. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment shouldn't we wait for this to be closed to see if we repeat 2008 and put Obama and Romney as TFAs? igordebraga ≠ 19:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- We can always change it later, there's no harm in nominating it now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or we could nominate Sesame Street! .... maybe that was too soon. Anyway, I'm a bit concerned about doing the same thing again; wouldn't this be the third TFA for Barack Obama? --Rschen7754 19:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- We can always change it later, there's no harm in nominating it now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. A fine article for the date. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Bryan's Cross of Gold speech from this same campaign was FA on July 9th. Prefer Romney/Obama if possible. Is there an alternative? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Big date, Big Bird is watching and the History of Sesame Street is on the line as is the United States - we prefer something more Obama/Romney...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment To be bold - there are these two FAs: Inauguration of Barack Obama, and George W. Romney...Modernist (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I think a historic campaign is much better and fairer than presenting one side, and I like to see the "loser" in focus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for US polling day we should either run something completely unassociated with US politics, or we run something (or more than one thing, as four years ago) to be neutral. If this runs, we risk complaints on the one hand that we're featuring a Democrat (pro-Obama) and on the other that we're featuring a Democrat's defeat (pro-Romney). Per Modernist, if we are to touch US politics, I would run both George W. Romney and Inauguration of Barack Obama on November 6, using the same special coding that was devised four years ago to present them randomly. I would not want Barack Obama running for a third time as TFA. BencherliteTalk 08:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
November 13
Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania)
- Nov 13 is the date is was listed as a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Support PumpkinSky talk 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, on the right track, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
November 17
Metroid Prime
Five points: Date marks the tenth anniversary of the game's release. Featured since 2008, and I'm the main contributor. Last VG article on the main page was in September 20, which can lead to a two month break if no such TFA appears in October. igordebraga ≠ 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support even though I never finished the game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- As a side note, archiving some of these links may be a good idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support It's a great change of pace from all the articles about roads and dead people. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'd rather the article run with no image than run with a picture of a building that isn't even in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As you wish. igordebraga ≠ 03:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
November 20
Windsor Castle
Four points: 20th anniversary of the fire, and a widely covered topic. Old-school citations, but everything else is first-rate. -- Dianna (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)