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 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 | Harizotoh9 | |
January 29 | Dominik Hašek | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
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 9 | Animaniacs | Why | 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 | Phallus indusiatus | 1 | 0 | ||
Nonspecific 2 | RAF Northolt | 4 | Significant contributor has not had article featured. | ||
Nonspecific 3 | Periodic table | 8, although I would impose a -2 or 3 for already having appeared. In effect, a 6-5. (Disputed; see notes below. This article is not eligible for TFA and the usual point system does not apply. Any article with points may replace this one.) | Has previously appeared on the front page; see discussion | 7 | 4 |
Nonspecific 4 | Youngstown, Ohio | 4 | Widely covered topic, promoted since 2007 | 1 | 0 |
Nonspecific 5 | |||||
December 1 | Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil | 2 | 1 year FA, relevant date (birthday) | 1 | 0 |
December 4 | Jesse L. Brown | -1 | day of death, recent similar article | 1 | 1 |
December 5 | Alexis Bachelot | day of death | 1 | 0 | |
December 8 | Imagine (song) | 3 | Widely covered; author's first main-page appearance | 9 | 1 |
December 17 | Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo | 3 | Date relevance; promoted in March 2010 | 9 | 2 |
† 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
Phallus indusiatus
- Example of a nomination for any date, can be used. We have plenty excellent articles on mushrooms with excellent images, - this is the season for most readers (northern hemisphere), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Was here before, returned after waiting a while, we have more than 60 other mushrooms ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This blurb looks rather obviously too long, and the image is in the wrong place. There are instructions at the top of this page; following those instructions will help make the scheduling job easier. This page is here to allow the community a hand in scheduling, and that hand can be used most effectively by reading and following the space and layout restrictions that apply to the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've corrected the layout and checked the word count; it in fact is not too long (it only looked too long because it was laid out wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Query - can you please calculate the points. Also wondering - if it's currently mushroom season in the northern hemisphere, perhaps run an article of one that grows in the north, such as this interesting one - unless the intent is to showcase a southern hemisphere mushroom for those of us up north? I think this is an interesting article and would support it, but just curious. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was mushroom season in the north when it was first suggested, not any more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nom says "this is the season for most readers (northern hemisphere)" - so was going off of that. Thinking about this one. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was mushroom season in the north when it was first suggested, not any more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 2
- As this was the first RAF station article to reach featured status, I have counted it as an under-represented subject. I've included a photograph of the airfield taken in 1917 as the best available. Harrison49 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
1 year FA (1 pt), nominator's first TFA (1 pt), not widely covered or vital, not underrepresented as it's not in one of the few topics (as displayed at WP:FA) with less than 50 articles (see #cite note-underrepresented-4), but nothing in the last six months strikes me as particularly "similar" (2 pts) unless every warfare-related topic penalises anything else warfare-related. So I'd say 4 points, which is a pretty respectable score. As for the image, it's rather difficult to work out what it is. I wonder whether a crop of File:Polish War Memorial, Northolt - geograph.org.uk - 18610.jpg would work, with the words (Polish War Memorial pictured) added after the relevant sentence. The last paragraph at RAF Northolt#Post-war civil and military use needs some updating as the Olympics are over, and there are some deadlinks to fix tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=en:RAF_Northolt - I fixed one, but sleep calls... after which, I might try to reword the blurb to focus less on geography and more on history. BencherliteTalk 00:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support; the blurb looks fine to me, and geography helps place it to the outsider. For image, even one of the images of a plane on the runway might be an acceptable choice.--Chimino (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. I've updated the references within the article, and have replaced the 1917 photograph with one of a Spitfire in the Officers' Mess car park. Harrison49 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 3
Periodic table
OK, before I say anything about this nomination, I want to make one thing clear: this article has appeared on the main page before, in 2004. However, following a discussion at WT:TFA/R#Periodic table, there was a consensus that this article, due to a number of factors, could be an exception to this rule and appear again. Now for the point totals: vital article (4), significant contributor (1), is underrepresented (1), and no similar article has appeared for six months (2) for a total of eight (!) points. Credit goes to User:Double sharp for providing the blurb.StringTheory11 (t •c) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Point tally disputed. This article has already run as TFA and is not eligible to run again per the clear page instructions. If it were to run over other eligible articles, some sort of new point subtraction would apply. Our point system is not intended to apply to articles that have already run, and the eight calculated points is disputed. An eligible FA that has not been run can replace this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and we discussed it at WT:TFAR first, instead of just nominating it straight away, because we were aware of that rule. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Four editors do not make consensus to overturn a long-standing consensus on this page. And no provision for or discussion of how the points system would change to account for this proposed change was made. And there was no attempt to bring in the wider FA community to discuss such a dramatic change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and we discussed it at WT:TFAR first, instead of just nominating it straight away, because we were aware of that rule. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Point tally disputed. This article has already run as TFA and is not eligible to run again per the clear page instructions. If it were to run over other eligible articles, some sort of new point subtraction would apply. Our point system is not intended to apply to articles that have already run, and the eight calculated points is disputed. An eligible FA that has not been run can replace this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support as I promised at WT:TFAR. Solid article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose don't see why articles should be allowed to run twice for reasons like this. --Rschen7754 06:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the depth of changes, I would consider this the same topic running twice but not the same article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, a chemistry article hasn't been featured on the main page for over six months, which would give an additional two points. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me about that! I have added it to the nomination summary and the chart. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support as per my comments at WT:TFAR. This is (1) a vital article rather than pop fluff, and so one of the most important elements of our encyclopaedia; (2) an FFA reworked by a new team of editors; (3) something that appeared in February 2004, so a very long time ago and when things were very different (WP:FA looked like this and FAC looked like this, for example). I think that, taken together, all these reasons make it appropriate to give the article a second exposure at TFA. BencherliteTalk 08:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Bencherlite, couldn't say it better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, we don't run articles twice. Please remove, as this breaches the instructions in place for this page (I have already removed this once). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - we were always going to get here at some point, given the vast changes on WP since the early years. Bencherlite says it best. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I wouldn't object to it running again if we've used up most of the articles eligible to appear as TFA. I don't see any reason to remove the nomination from here though - an occasional flaunting of the rules is unlikely to spark Armageddon. Yomanganitalk 23:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it were decided (by broad consensus) to do this, then a large negative point deduction would have to be discussed so as not to prejudice articles that haven't yet run. Adding this here based on the input of a few editors, with little discussion, isn't the best for the community to show they are ready to take on more scheduling responsibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not being decided merely on points though is it? Otherwise the points could just be totted up and no further community input would be required. The discussion of whether this type of article is suitable for running a second time is taking place here and hopefully a consensus will emerge. Yomanganitalk 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- what is supposed to happen with points no longer is ... but in theory, if a more worthy article came along, it would have more points, and could displace this one. Since this one has already ran, it would get a negative point deduction even if we were to allow same, as in, what the heck, go ahead and let the page be a free-for-all !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Only one article on the potential upcoming requests actually has more than 8 points. Some articles coming here have even had negative numbers of points and still ran. That might be a good criterion – only allowing such occurrences if their point totals would be sufficiently high (presumably helped along by VA or CT status). (I'm obviously biased.) Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- If this was to become a regular occurrence something could be worked out with the points. If this article doesn't get support to run then working out a points system that is weighted appropriately for FFAs is rather a waste of time. Yomanganitalk 23:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Less than a month ago we decided here not to run Sesame Street that had already been on the main page but has been substantially rewritten. Discussion here. I don't see a reason not to reach consensus here, but I'm thinking we might see more and more of these (two in four weeks) so maybe it's not a bad idea to add a large point deduction and simply go by the points. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I like that idea. Currently this article seems to have 8 points, for comparison. From Bencherlite's comments it looks as though (1) the point deduction should be somewhat lowered for CTs/VAs/(widely covered articles?) and (2) the point deduction should be less the more years ago the article ran. (I'm obviously biased). Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I queried on talk why Bencherlite and Gerda have one standard for this article and completely different standards for another article only a few weeks ago. (See the link Truthkeeper gave.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps because this is a VA (as Bencherlite pointed out) and Sesame Street isn't, and not because one is science and one is popular culture? Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- One more thing: this article has received nearly 350,000 (!) views this month this, while Sesame Street has less than four times this number, at around 80,000. In addition, the topic of this article is much more encyclopedic, being something that is essential to a well-rounded education, while Sesame Street is in no way essential to any education, apart from very small children who will not be reading Wikipedia. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Truthkeeper, I think that is a great idea. May I propose the following: Less that two years ago: -∞ points. Less than four years ago: -6 points. Less than 6 years ago: -4 points. Less than 8 years ago: -2 points. More than 8 years ago: -1 points. I believe that this would be a fair system. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. - Per Bencherlite. While another TFA does violate the letter of the guideline, I really don't think it violates the spirit of the guideline. Its a new copyedit from new editors and an immensely important article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- So, anyone can copyedit an old TFA, and then we can begin running old articles that have already appeared on the mainpage to the exclusion of the hundreds of newer articles that have never run? If we were to develop broad consensus for such a policy, then the point system would need to be rejigged; I'd oppose such a policy at any rate, and suggest we stick with the policy or only running a TFA twice on extremely rare occasions (such as the two we have done in the history of TFA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- It appeared nine years ago! Also, I think this qualifies as badgering a !vote. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- This appeared on 28 February 2004, when WP was very different, and the article has changed a lot: 2004, and 2012. Readers are not going to get the same content anyway, even if they remember that it's been there before. (I'm obviously biased.) Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. This is an immensely important topic for any encyclopaedia to cover, and I think it reflects well on Wikipedia that our article on the matter is of such quality. I see no reason not to run it again, and I think we would all benefit from the perception it would give our readers—that we're not just a website built around undue scandal and fancruft. On a wider note, I'd be happy to see any FA-Class vital article run any number of times, but one running twice nine years apart certainly isn't a bad start. And I won't be changing this support, so any badgering can be kindly directed to a nearby cat, tea cosy, or anything else that might actually heed it. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose too many other articles haven't appeared as a TFA. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Bencherlite and Grapple X. Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 4
Youngstown, Ohio
4 points: +2 more than two years promoted, +2 widely covered topic. No TFA on city or town since Rhyolite, Nevada on September 28th. Youngstown is notable as a former hub of two declining American institutions: manufacturing and the Mafia.--Chimino (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Support- dead or dying rust belt industrial city with a great history. Nice choice. If I have time, I'll look to see whether it needs tidying, because it's an older FA. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)- Sorry, withdrawing my support at this time. A close look shows a lot of work to be done - many sections are uncited, the page needs tidying, and for some reason very slow loading so not getting much done there. Will revisit though. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 5
Specific date nominations
December 1
Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil
- from pending requests, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion about another possible choice (no longer relevant) and about the points system in general (now at WT:TFAR again). BencherliteTalk 10:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Points: 1 year old FA (1), relevant date for article (birthday, 1), not widely covered or vital, not in an underrepresented groups of FA subjects as defined above, not the first TFA for the author, last comparable article was Pedro I of Brazil on Sept 7 so no penalties or bonuses. Total 2 points. BencherliteTalk 10:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. --Lecen (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support; nice article.--Chimino (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
December 4
Jesse L. Brown
- from pending requests, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Points please, per the consensus at WT:TFAR that nominations should continue to use them, and because with 10 articles nominated for specific dates the page is full and people need to know which one is next to be replaced. Please also notify the principal author(s) of your nomination. BencherliteTalk 11:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)- Oppose because no points are given. We are not here to do your work. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thomas Baker (aviator) (another aviator killed in action, albeit from Australia and in the First World War) is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2012, which would give this a 2-point penalty anyway, I think. BencherliteTalk 10:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- On the points, I would like a word from Dabomb, the only one whom they would help, to my understanding. - Ten slots are full only because scheduling is behind. - I informed the main author now. - When did we see the last black face on the Main page? - Today's pilot was scheduled although this one was on the pending list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Putting something on the pending list does not prevent a similar article being chosen in advance - it would make the scheduler's job far too onerous. In terms of non-European faces at TFA, and assuming your question wasn't rhetorical, the forthcoming TFA David Suzuki: The Autobiography has a photograph of Suzuki (of Japanese heritage), the TFA on November 3 had a picture of the Indian king Kanthirava Narasaraja I, the October 19 TFA had a photograph of a Chinese-American litigant, the next day's TFA was of Andjar Asmara from Indonesia, a few days later came Hadji Ali of possible Egyptian background, etc - so the TFA slot is not quite an all-white preserve. BencherliteTalk 19:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I asked black and meant black. As you observed we saw Asian faces on both 19 and 20 October. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- On the points, I would like a word from Dabomb, the only one whom they would help, to my understanding. - Ten slots are full only because scheduling is behind. - I informed the main author now. - When did we see the last black face on the Main page? - Today's pilot was scheduled although this one was on the pending list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Points As original editor, I believe this has -1 because, though December 4 is the date of death, the FA was promoted less than a year ago, and there has recently been another aviator on TFA, penalizing this one. —Ed!(talk) 12:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
December 5
Alexis Bachelot
- from pending requests, again. I will provide point calculation once I get a convincing reason what purpose they serve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should try rebutting the factors made in the discussion about them on the talk page, rather than ignoring the consensus view that the points system should be followed (unless and until, of course, there's agreement about replacing it with something different - but nobody's suggested anything yet, apart from my rejected suggestion of abandoing points entirely, which even I came to see would be a bad idea). Leaving points aside, you're once again ignoring all the factors that inform discussion of nominations - how old is the FA? Is there a date relevance? Is it a widely covered artice? When did we last have something similar? Is it from an underpresented section of FAs? Why should we have to check all these for ourselves when you're the nominator? In addition, this blurb is about 1,750 characters instead of the 1,200 standard - do you need to be given a convincing reason for that standard as well? BencherliteTalk 19:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The blurb (shortened a bit) is subject to change until "he" appears. He could go to any date, but his day of death seems a better posirion. No other article is proposed for the same date, if a better one comes up, this will go, sure. The article was promoted on 4 March 2012 and should meet quality standards. The person led the first mission to Hawaii, seems unique enough to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
December 8
Imagine
I am posting on behalf of Gabe, who is unsure how to do it. Four points: a widely covered topic; Gabe has not yet had any works on the main page; date significance. This recently-promoted article is ready for prime time. -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- 3 points - no points for date significance just because it would be the anniversary of Lennon's assassination, per long-standing interpretation of the rule on this page. Date appropriateness (i.e. it would be nice to have a Lennon song on that day) is not the same thing as an "obvious and significant connection between the article and the date". It will lose two points to Illinois if that runs as requested. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Very recently promoted, good day to run it. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Bencherlite (talk · contribs), it's certainly a great date to post it on for this particular subject matter and day. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support "to imagine a world at peace, without the divisiveness and barriers of religious denominations and nationalities, and to consider that people should be living a life less attached to material possessions", well presented, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The article does not say it is anti-religious, nihilistic, atheistic, and may more of the negative things. Also why there is no criticism section? Also he is against religion generally, not against particular denominations... Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose because of the aforementioned issues. The article only praises the song and hides the correct information. Please compare the lyrics with this article, and you will know what I mean. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you consider "anti-religious, nihilistic, atheistic," and so on negative? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Specially as Lennon singing that no heaven, religion, possessions, or countries would be a positive thing to the world. Anyway, Support. igordebraga ≠ 00:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose because of the aforementioned issues. The article only praises the song and hides the correct information. Please compare the lyrics with this article, and you will know what I mean. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've just cut out a lot of lit-crit verbiage, without, I think, removing any useful content. Good to have it for the anniversary. As Lou Reed (approximately) said, "Imagine no possessions, ?!#&?!" Support---Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC). Support withdrawn pending reinstatement of my edits. The literary criticism section is an embarrassment. Rothorpe (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)---OK, can support again now. Rothorpe (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Well-written article with no outstanding issues as far as I can see. The date is appropriate, as well. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Lukobe (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support makes perfect sense to run it that day. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
December 17
Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo
Heart-warming Christmas fare, with music and dancing. 3 points 1 point for date relevance, 2 points for being promoted over two years ago. It would be nice to be able use the image of Mr Hankey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 19:37, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reasons as last year: we don't want to offend a sizeable amount of the population by putting it on December 25. Might consider another date. --Rschen7754 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would not oppose for December 17. --Rschen7754 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Rschen, there is a reference below to September 17-- are you referring to that date or did you mean December? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)See error below and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would not oppose for December 17. --Rschen7754 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support on 17
SeptemberDecember (typo before), the original air date (it's still in pending requests for that date) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support on 17th, Oppose on 25th. There's nothing to be gained by wilfully choosing a date purely to be offensive, and (as a firm atheist) I find the attitude that Christians "aren't the kind of people we want to pander to" one of the most repellently bigoted statements I've ever seen expressed on Wikipedia - would you make the same comment towards any other ethnic, religious or political group? Mogism (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- You'll notice I didn't say Christians, but simply specified the kind of easily-offended people who would take an article about a cartoon to be a personal affront. And yes, I would make the same comment towards anyone from any group who is so easily offended by humour they can simply ignore. But thanks for actually reading what I wrote. GRAPPLE X 02:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Mogism, are you referring to December 17, or the orginal air date of September 17 mentioned above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)See error above and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose any time one week before or after Christmas, same as last year, no need to offend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have reverted an inappropriate date change here; [2] please read the instructions at the top of the page.
(Nor is it clear that there is support for Dec 17, btw.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)1.If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
- Per the discussion here, I would not oppose December 17. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have reverted an inappropriate date change here; [2] please read the instructions at the top of the page.
- continued on talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support it running, but am indifferent as to date. Note that Christmas is just about the lowest numbers of views for the whole year so I don't think it would be that terrible if we ran it. That being said, it may be something we don't need in a year in which Wikipedia has received plenty of publicity, not all of it good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support for 17th December: worth running on a relevant date, but no need to push buttons with big red warning signs popping up and down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for the 25th per Sandy there is no need to offend people. There must be a more suitable entry for that date. I have no problem with running it the 17th, however. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for the 25th, support for the 17th. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support running this on December 17th. I strongly agree with WP:NOTCENSORED, but it doesn't justify purposely offending people. The 15th anniversary of the episode's debut is a highly relevant and appropriate day on which to schedule the article. —David Levy 03:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also support for December 17th and oppose for the 25th.--Chimino (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sigh ... I'd rather not see this run on either date. The last night of Hanukkah is December 16, which, with main page changing at 00:00 UTC, puts this on the main page whilst still half the world is celebrating the end of that holiday. Sorry, and don't think this oppose will make much of a difference. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
To this point, I count nine supports for the 17th, and two opposes; it has been more than 48 hours and there is more support for the 17th than the 25th, so I'm moving this to the 17th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)