Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Talk archives for Wikipedia:Today's featured article (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4 >	4 >>

Contents 1 Change name of Main Page section and this set of pages to 'Article of the day' 2 Queen of England, Ireland, and...France 3 Request 4 Saturn related to Holy Prepuce? 5 Encourage anyone add articles to the future Featured Articles Templates? 6 Featured Article Newsfeed 7 2005 archive 8 Breastfeeding 9 Request 10 Infinite monkey theorem 11 Mozilla Firefox? 12 Holiday theme 13 Anything from Royalty, nobility, or chivalry 14 Length of Today's featured article summaries 15 Request 16 Dirty front page 16.1 Request for policy on Main Page inclusion 17 Bottom links 18 Old featured articles 19 Jan 18 entry - feedback 20 Walpole 21 Request 22 Featured articles protected? 23 should choose one of these 24 Either USD or US$, but not USD$ 25 Featured article on April 14 26 Request 27 Any chance of seeing this on the front page?

Change name of Main Page section and this set of pages to 'Article of the day'

Several people have in the past mentioned that using "Featured article" for the name of this section on the Main Page and this set of pages is confusing. I silently agreed but did not know of a good alternative. But 'Article of the day' (used for the email feature) does seem be a good alternative. If there is a consensus for a change, then I will move all 'Today's featured article' pages and fix any broken messages. All requirements would be the same as well as the 'More featured articles' link (which is no different than the disparity between the 'In the news' section title and the 'More current events...' link). --mav 17:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support this move. We need to decrease the number of people who confuse an article that is featured on the front page and one that is just featured. Sadly, you can bet a lot more requests will start cropping up from people who think just any article can be the 'Article of the day'. Johnleemk | Talk 17:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I oppose this move. I think "Today's featured article" is a *LOT* more straightforward than "Article of the day". I suspect that such a move will create many more problems than it solves, including John's. →Raul654 17:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

There is also the issue that some article's featured on the Main Page are no longer featured articles. --mav 22:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• For the record, I oppose this change. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• How's about "Featured Article of the Day"? --P3d0 19:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Queen of England, Ireland, and...France

Comment moved to Talk:Elizabeth I of England →Raul654 20:47, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Request

The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens was the most significant volcanic eruption to occur in the lower 48 U.S. states in recorded history. The eruption was preceded by a two-month long series of earthquakes and steam venting episodes that created a huge bulge and a fracture system on Mount St. Helens' north slope. An earthquake on May 18, 1980 caused the entire weakened north face to slide away, suddenly exposing the partly molten, gas and steam-rich rock in the volcano to lower pressure. The rock responded by exploding into a super-heated mix of pulverized lava and older rock that sped toward Spirit Lake so fast that it quickly passed the avalanching north face. By the time the ash settled, 57 people were dead (including innkeeper Harry Truman and several geologists), thousands of animals were killed, hundreds of square miles (km²) were reduced to a wasteland, billions of U.S. dollars in damage was done; the once graceful face of Mount St. Helens was scarred with a huge crater open to the north.

--mav 06:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P3d0 13:44, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) -- What do we mean by "hundreds of square miles (km²)"? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Ok, I have been bold, and deleted the parenthetical km². --P3d0 13:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Saturn related to Holy Prepuce?

Is is just me or did anyone else look at today's featured article (Holy Prepuce) and wonder why a picture of saturn was alongside it? At first I thought that the wrong picture got put up. It did get me to click on the link, if that was what you were going for, but I'm not sure that other people(namely new visitors) would have the same reaction. A better picture would be best, since saturn doesn't have that much to do with the subject, but atleast put something about its relaitionship in the blurb. --Aqua 06:26, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

There was a picture of Jesus there until about an hour ago, when it was removed as a possible copyright infringement. The saturn pic was a temp replacement until I could find something better (which I now have). →Raul654 06:50, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Encourage anyone add articles to the future Featured Articles Templates?

Now that there is a set format for the Today's featured article templates, and they are easily accessible via tomorrow's featured article why don't we encourage those proposing articles to be "Today's featured article" to populate a future template with the relavant content. This has already started to happen on occasions. If it became the norm, the importance of 'Single Point of Failure' of the featured article coordinator would be reduced, as their role would be reduced to management of the queue of forthcomming articles. Richard Taylor 01:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no, absolutely not, for reasons that have been expounded upon at vast length (4 archive pages worth) in the past. →Raul654 01:33, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

This 'single point of failure' rubbish is all academic since Raul has never failed to keep up with the updates. Enough people watch this set of pages so that if it is 15 minutes to 00:00 UTC and no featured article has been selected for the next day, that somebody will move the back-up entry to that day's template. --mav 04:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article Newsfeed

An RSS or Atom newsfeed of the featured article would be useful, and would give people a reason (or reminder) to come back to Wikipedia.

I think the best place to make this suggestion would be the developer's mailing list at Wiki-tech. →Raul654 03:29, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

It's not RSS, but there's always the featured article by email... — Kate Turner | Talk 21:04, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Dze27 has now created a featured article feed. See wikitech for details. Angela. 06:13, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

2005 archive

I plan to create all 377 pages for the 2005 'Today's featured article' archive sometime in the next several weeks. So far the only major difference will be the replacement of the 'Archive – By email – More featured articles' part of each individual page with a template ref that has a {{{month}}} variable. MediaWiki 1.4 should be installed at least in beta form by early 2005, so the annoying 5 message limit for template messages will be gone at that point. Now is the time to suggest any other changes. --mav 17:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. →Raul654 19:15, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2005. --mav 05:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

It's not just human mothers. There are some animals (i.e., mammals) which also breastfeed. Dogs and cats spring to mind. Did you know that dogs often have several pairs of nipples and can nurse a whole litter of pups at once? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request

The Parliament of Canada is Canada's legislative branch, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario. According to section 17 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament consists of three components: the Sovereign, the Senate, and the House of Commons. The Sovereign is normally represented by the Governor General, who appoints the 105 members of the Senate on the advice of the Prime Minister. The 308 members of the House of Commons are directly elected by the people, with each member representing a single electoral district (or riding).

(Another image to consider would be Image:Parliament3.jpg)
Radagast 18:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm intentionally avoiding political articles like this until after the US election next Tuesday. I'll put it up a little after that. →Raul654 02:29, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Radagast 12:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem

How appropriate! Gdr 20:25, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Thanks :) →Raul654 20:47, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox?

Whatever..........

I'm as big a Firefox fanboy as the next person but I was also a little surprised to see this as the Featured article only a couple of days after becoming featured. --Enceladus 21:59, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Typically I do leave them a while, but it was requested (and I saw no reason not to grant it). →Raul654 22:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

This is to be expected, even if Firefox was crap it would still be there, Firefox is such a big thing because its challenging microsoft and it hasn't been suppressed by microsofts enormass mass of lawyers. Though I have to say, the qoute at www.mozilla.com is right, you seriously might as well get rid of IE.

Holiday theme

Will we be seeing at least a few items in the next month relevant to the holidays? —Mike 02:07, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful, as we don't have many holiday-related featured articles. Ambi 02:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anything from Royalty, nobility, or chivalry

I would like to suggest/request that anything from the section titled Royalty, nobility, and chivalry be featured soon because there are quite a few articles and only five have been featured. Just a suggestion. Kathy T 00:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Queen Victoria is scheduled for the 12th. →Raul654 05:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Length of Today's featured article summaries

Is it just me, or are the summaries getting longer and longer? Compare with the ones from say, February of this year. Enochlau 01:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'Say, february' was actually the very first month we used these on the main page, and it's not strange that the format has changed sligtly since it's first use. However, you are right, comparing even to may-july featured article blurbs, they are growing. ✏ Sverdrup 01:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After looking at the archive, I'd say over the last 6 months there's been a slight increase (25%-35% or so). Then again, the expectations for what a featured article should be have increased dramatically in the same period, so a lengthing main page blurb isn't too shocking. →Raul654 05:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Request

Doctor Who is a British science fiction television series, produced by the BBC and concerning the adventures of a mysterious time travelling adventurer known only as "The Doctor". It is also the title of a 1996 television movie featuring the same character.

The programme was and remains a significant part of British popular culture, widely recognised for its creative storytelling, use of innovative music which was produced by the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, and budget special effects. The show has become a cult television favourite on par with Star Trek, and has influenced generations of British genre television writers, many of whom grew up watching the series. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes of the 20th century drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, Doctor Who was placed third.

A new series of Doctor Who television episodes is being produced by the BBC. It is scheduled to broadcast on BBC One in Spring 2005.

-khaosworks 03:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dirty front page

Having every topic covered inside the wikipedia is fine, but are you sure you want the flagship front page to have a direct link to pornography, hentai, and H-games? On 2004-12-08, the Bishojo_game featured article did exactly this. I know all us computer geeks are real numbed, but when I'm trying to show off to my grandma how real Wikipedia is, this doesn't exactly help the cause.

I have to agree. I enjoy anime, but I feel that Wikipedia needs to be very careful with PR, even if that means censoring the main page. I was a bit offended (perhaps not the best word) by the article highlighted. Even thouogh it was not explicitly pornographic, it felt suggestive to me. I think it would be a great idea to start implementing the 'grandma test' (that is, don't put anything up on the main page that you wouldn't mind showing your grandma and saying, 'look what I did!'). -- Sean Kelly 17:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stay right there, Anal sex is nearing Feature Quality. We are an encyclopedia, while we do not promote you watching Hentai or performing Anal sex, we also do NOT censor it, and I am very glad we are not China. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 18:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. We should not censor. If an article on pedifiles is a good one, then it should be featured somewhere. However, the main page is different. If we need to censor the front page so that the entire encyclopedia doesn't get censored by the general public, then so be it. In public relations, the laws are different: people judge based on what they see first. And wikipedia needs to take PR very seriously. If we put up material in any way suggestive, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. -- Sean Kelly 19:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do we need to take PR seriously. Why do we need to bow before the public pleading, for it to accept us. Let the mainstream encyclopedias do that. We can and should take the opportunity to be whatever we desire. We can and should author an encyclopedia that remains uneffected by public pressure, without regard to cultural sensitivity. We are an alternative from - not an addition to. TimMony 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. We have to ask ourselves who should own wikipedia. If it exists for the public good, then I don't see how it can exist without pandering to the public. If it exists to be an 'alternative' site (say, how Indymedia is to the media) then I would say PR is not a problem. Personally, I hate the mainstream, and I would rather read Indymedia any day, but I also hope that others have an objective source they find interesting. If we have to censor one page — one page! — in order to greatly increase the number of contributors, then I say do it. -- Sean Kelly 22:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right. btw,I hate animes. --ThomasK 14:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

so? the links are relevant to the article content, and it's not like pornography contains pornographic images, either... dab (T) 15:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There, you see? Certain subjects are unsuitable for the main page. While this particular article doesn't really bother me, provided it isn't skewing Japanese culture, some may be offended by it and so a different article should be used. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 18:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, now it's proven that there are unsuitable subjects. And if people may be offended by an article, we shouldn't use it.

Except, of course, that I completely disagree. But that's just my opinion, and I wouldn't go vote for anal sex, for example, just to fly a banner. I do find the notion that featured articles with potentially offensive subjects are not to be used offensive to the effort its contributors put in, but then, what's more important? Our public image or the personal feelings of our contributors? Unfortunately, I'd have to say the former. But I don't like it.

And I believe we're all sufficiently grown up to be able to state our opinions without getting shot down, Eequor. :-) JRM 19:06, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

It is good to recognize the effort of contributors, but we do have Wikipedia:Featured article to show our best efforts, and that page is linked from the main page. If we don't care what our readers think, though, we're just showing off. How will we look to readers if we appear to be showing off in how much detail we can write about sth "dirty" — writing which we nevertheless claim to be our "best work"? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 19:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to say "mature". Not not not not not. But that, secretly, is what I think. I do realize it's hubris to think the world should change its preferences because we feel our encyclopedia is so brilliant and its editors are so erudite, but can't I secretly want it? :-) I'm not qualified to make value judgments on this. Abstain, with a twinge of regret. JRM 19:49, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Would it not be more mature for us to accept that certain readers may find certain topics distasteful and to make a reasonable effort to respect their differing values? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 00:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your POV, and I respect it. I cannot possibly find myself to agree with it, however. What readers, what topics? White supremacy is distasteful to me, far more distasteful than anal sex. Would I want people to make a "reasonable effort" to "respect" my values and keep it off the main page? No, because in trying they would disrespect a value I hold even stronger: that I'd rather read a thousand factual, neutral articles on topics I find distasteful than be deprived of one because someone defended my imagined sensibilities. There's really no way to please every reader here, Eequor. I want to believe that there are non-contributing readers out there who feel just like I do, and are offended not by articles, but by the notion that they are screened by "considerate" people on no other grounds than their topic (not the way they're written, not the POVs they neutrally express, no, just the topic). I'm tempted to quote Dogbert here: how can you be so insensitive about my insensitivity? I can't help it that I'd like to ram enlightenment down everybody's throat. If that's immature to some eyes, well, then, give me a lollipop and stick me in the Sandbox, mama. :-) I'd like to believe that as long as keep my civility, it's all good. JRM 01:27, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Well, here's a question: If we're concerned about "public image", just what kind of "public" should Wikipedia look to attract? Do we want to attract censorious people who will delete or hide others' work because they feel it is "dirty"? I don't think so. Wikipedia policy regards that as abusive conduct.

We are perfectly capable of writing excellent encyclopedia articles on all manner of topics. Censorious regimes have killed in their efforts to silence speakers on some of those topics: genocide, anarchism, Taiwan independence, sexuality, Zionism, democracy, what-have-you. Wikipedians who work on topics that have been banned elsewhere should feel proud of their freedom and their work, and should not be asked to hide their talents under a bushel. --FOo 23:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True, but there is a very large gap between topics of global concern and an H-game. I also think it is unlikely that anyone might be killed over an obscure Catholic relic. Nobody is asking for bishojo game to be censored; it simply doesn't need to be placed on the main page. It will always be available if somebody has the interest to look for it. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 00:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to note that the issue is censoring a single page whose only function is to present Wikipedia to the world. At the very least there should be a policy on this issue: yes, all articles are appropriate, or no some articles do not belong on the main page --Sean Kelly 01:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should by all means show off articles that are of excellent quality and happen to be offensive to the censorious. If people who would destroy Wikipedia with censorship are thereby repelled from Wikipedia entirely, that's just fine. --FOo 23:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The concern is for the readers, not the users. It would be terrible if readers were driven away by Wikipedia's insensitivity. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 00:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia has covered articles on potentially offensive/controverial articles on the Main Page before, including Prostitution, the James Bulger murder case, the Holy Prepuce, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Japanese toilets, Crushing by elephant and many more. See the archive for details. Some people have to realize that most of the world is not a happy place, so you should expect controversial articles to pop up on the main page sometimes. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\^talk]] 23:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how Japanese people would react if they saw this discussion. I think that they would probably be amused at us. As English speakers, many of us are strongly influenced by a culture that encourages us to respond immaturely to things related to sex. Just look at the title of this section for evidence. As most educated people feel this is obvious (I'm not accusing people in this discussion of a lack of education) I think we should use Wikipedia to reject this tendency. It's the responsiblity of independent media to enlighten people where convential media can't. TimMony 02:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be nice, but I don't think Wikipedia has nearly enough influence to bring about cultural changes. People are more likely to just go somewhere else, which would defeat your purpose. Wikipedia would have to make extremely subtle changes, not blatantly challenge readers' beliefs at every opportunity. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 04:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree here that we should be very careful in choosing what goes on the Main Page. I'm very much against censorship within articles themselves, but the Main Page is different, as there it becomes a PR issue. I mean, why do we protect the Main Page? Well, because vandalism looks really bad on the Main Page, and vandalism on the Main Page has a much greater effect than on other articles. How so? Because it's the first thing people see when they come to Wikipedia. Filtering the Main Page establishes two goals: first, it makes Wikipedia look more respectable in the eyes of the mainstream, and second, it attracts more new users to the site. As for what test we should use in filtering our Main Page, I think it's simple: if a significant percentage of the English-speaking peoples (because this is, after all, the English encyclopedia) would find the topic obscene, I don't think it belongs as a Main Page Featured Article (I am not saying a supposedly "obscene" topic couldn't be a Featured Article; I am saying it shouldn't be a Featured Article on the Main Page). I think references to "obscene" (as in some people would find them so) topics could go on Selected Anniversaries and other parts of the Main Page that aren't as prominent as the Featured Article section, though. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 08:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Understand the difference between "putting your best foot forward" and "censorship". It would be censorship to say that the Bishojo article was "dirty" (it was not), especially if that were used as an excuse to eliminate such articles from Wikipedia. However, the Main page needs to be a showcase that elicits the most positive response from the broadest world-wide readership, with emphasis given to new readers. Get them reading and soon enough they will encounter enough to open their eyes or narrow them as they see fit, but the important thing is to get them reading! Then they will begin editing! So until some later date when Northern European tolerance has spread far and wide and melded with Northern Californian mellowness, I think "anal sex" is best not featured, regardless of how squeaky clean it can be made (and I have no doubt that article can be made exquisitely neutral point-of-view). Just because the heavy duty patrons of Wikipedia have the experience and even-handed perspective that can handle tough topics doesn't mean that we need to prove how macho-NPoV we are by actually putting one on the Main page and rubbing new readers' faces in our macho-ness. There is no shortage of articles that can be edited to the highest standards and will achieve the goal I suggest for the Main page: to attract the broadest and deepest spectrum of readers and editors, worldwide. Hu 10:41, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

It would already be censorship to not allow any Featured Quality article on the front page. I agree that it might be preferable to give priority to showing the most intersting featured articles on our main page, but how can you claim to know the general public opinion in any way as to say Anal sex would not fall in this category. Search engine statistics would even tell you the exact opposite. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I do claim to have a better knowledge than someone who depends on search engine statistics. They are badly skewed by a very active minority who have certain obsessions. That minority will have no trouble being attracted to the "anal sex" page because the well written NPoV Wikipedia article on the topic, when it is completed, will be high up or even top of the list for that search term. It is just not the best topic to feature on the Main page, where we want to attract a wider, larger audience of people, including the multitudes new to the web who do not use search engines as much and seek a less confrontational experience at our front door. Hu 16:56, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Calling pornography or sexual content "dirty" (and thinking and treating it as such) is most definitely POV. If we can't avoid POV on the front page, then is there any hope for the project at all? We should feature the best articles on the front page. --Khendon 10:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is hope for the project if people are practical and not doctrinaire. The place to be doctrinaire is inside Wikipedia, where any reasonably well written material is freely available provided it is NPoV. The place to be practical is the Main page where we seek to attract people, not repel them. Hu 16:56, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

There is no way we can anticipate all that people might be offended at. How is the main page different form the rest of WP? If an article made it through FAC, it has been scrutinized for offensive statements. It should be main-page worthy by definition. If the subject is objectionable, rather than the article itself, what is the problem? The article will duly state that the subject is objectionable to some people. Otherwise, we would never have (must avoid Godwin) Battle of the Somme featured on the mainpage. It annoys me how people pretend to be offended at things like pornography, while they accept much more obscene atrocities as matter of fact. You know what? Pornography is a matter of fact just the same. Sheesh, why am I reminded of people who make a scandal of soldiers who have a smoke, just so they don't have to think about soldiers who shoot civilians in cold blood. Let me state here once and for all that I am personally, severely, offended at Battle of the Somme, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, and many other subjects covered by excellent WP articles. That does not imply that I am offended the articles themselves, nor do I object to their being featured on the Main Page. Now, tell me again how pornography is different? dab (T) 10:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just would like to state my utmost agreement with this statement. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

We can't perfectly anticipate what people might be offended at, but we can apply common sense. Furthermore, it is actually less a question of offending than a question of attracting, and the latter approach should be favored. It is common sense that more people would be repelled by "anal sex" than the "battle of the Somme". But there are much more attractive articles to choose from than "anal sex". Hu 16:56, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

It seems to me that many folks here are making the sophomore mistake of thinking that just because you can do something, it's a good idea. So, today, as if to thumb a collective nose at those who expressed reservations about yesterday's feature, we have the second consecutive MPFA featuring a USian/English speakers' take on a sexually-related topic focused on a non-English-speaking country (and, unlike yesterday's bishojo article, this one -- at least the bit of it on the main page -- is not even particularly interesting, or enlightening, or well-formed). The idea that all articles of some arbitrary quality and/or depth are equally worthy of Main Page Feature status is both wrong-headed and inaccurate: there are thousands of decently-written articles on mundane or exceedingly narrow topics that would never be nominated or selected; it makes sense that MPFA's -- the hook into the Wikipedia -- have some combination of general interest and gee-whiz-I-didn't-know-that, and, whether or not we want to admit it, such criteria are implicit in the nomination and selection process. Calling suggestions that selection process of main-page topics include some thought about suitability for a general audience "immature" is exactly backwards -- insisting on equal consideration for articles that are likely to turn off or offend a significant portion of new visitors just because we can is the childish thing. Having said all this, I'll mention that I don't consider either of the articles specifically mentioned here a big problem (though today's is dull and rather pointless and I don't think they should have been back-to-back), but I'm very concerned with the "heh heh you prudes, just watch what we do next" responses here. Yes, trying to worry about what is suitable and offensive is a difficult task and can be a slippery slope, but the alternative -- becoming a well-dressed version of the sniggering kids looking up dirty words in the unabridged dictionary -- is worse. Jgm 14:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, Jgm. Wikipedia is a world-wide resource. We can help the world catch up to northern European and northern North American tolerance by paying practical attention to what works in attracting a world-wide audience and paying attention to what repels that world-wide audience. A narrow doctrinaire approach to line up all the highest quality articles that meet a strict clinical definition of NPoV and then throw a dart at them to pick one, is just not using commonsense and is being just as narrow-minded and culture-centric as if all topics touching icky subjects were removed from the body of the Wikipedia. Making the Main page a confrontational battleground between the righteously doctrinaire free speech advocates and the broad audience of the world we want to appeal to would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. The righteous would win the free speech debate, but the audience would not come in the door. The Main page and the body of the project do not have the same objectives. Get people in the door reading and they will happily find the "anal sex" page on their own, if they want to. To argue otherwise is to not be practical. Hu 16:56, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

There really is a lot of nonsense talked here about censorship. Not all featured articles are deemed acceptable for presentation on the main page in the normal course of events, and it is open to people to object to such presentation. This is not censorship, it's common sense. The main page is our shop window, not a platform for some kind of misguided pseudo-liberalism, or any other ideologically driven position. Filiocht 16:15, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it really must be stressed that censorship is not meant to simply hide topics but to ban them outright. It is censorship to remove all books about religion from a library; it is not censorship to keep them in a separate "religion" section. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 19:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Where do you see liberalism here, pseudo- or not? If the pornography or the anal intercourse article contain liberalist povs, they should obviously never become FAs at all. Who tells you the finished anal sex article doesn't condemn the practice, call if from the devil or decadent? Would you still call it pseudo-liberalism to put such statements on the main page? --- Of course the FAs shouldn't push either liberal or fundamentalist povs. That's why we send them through FAC first. How does that relate to the question at hand? dab (ᛏ) 16:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the fallacy of division. Arguing that the liberal stance is to accept anything on the main page is not the same as arguing that the articles themselves reflect liberal bias. Indeed, they might contain a conservative bias and their inclusion on the main page would still be a liberal act. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 19:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Interestingly, there are two liberal positions here which are partially exclusive of each other. It's liberal to insist that anything may be used on the main page, but it's also liberal to ask for certain articles to be removed after problems with that stance become evident. It would be conservative to allow them to remain.... The purely liberal stance would be to strive for as much diversity as possible, making concessions for minority points of view. The purely conservative stance is to use a wall of bureaucracy to prevent distasteful articles from reaching the main page.) --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 21:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a lot of important topics are being covered here, but most important is how we decide what is "appropriate" and what is not. I felt that the article on Bishojo was inappropriate, but at the same time I would have felt an article on Anime that made direct mention to Hentai would not be overstepping its bounds. I hate to say this (really really hate it), but the best test might be whether or not you would hear it on the evening news. If an anchor can say it on TV, then we have a good chance of not offending many people. Let the FCC do this horrible job ;). I mean look, no one here is actually claiming to be offended by the article, but we need to remember that 20% of the internet is crap, and the other 80% is pornographic crap. The people we want to attract to WP do not trust us. Right or wrong, it's an issue we have to overcome, even if it means pandering. -- Sean Kelly 18:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For an illustration of how strongly some people simply do not trust Wikipedia, see Wizbang. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 20:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

anyone who expects WP to contain conclusive evidence of whether or not the US elections were rigged must be out of their mind. I'm sorry, but these are not the people I would want to attract. They figured out they should not blindly trust online sources. Good for them. There is far too much partisan crap going on here. We want to be fact collectors. Most facts, numerically, are uncontroversial but trivial. They are our strength. The 10% of the facts that are contested get 90% of the attention, of course, but that's a nuisance, and not our goal. Fine. Maybe we shouldn't feature Pornography on the Main Page. I will not lose any sleep if we scare away people because we have articles on topics they would rather not think about. The way to winning respect is accuracy, though, and not a family-friendly Main Page. dab (ᛏ) 13:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me again. This is the original poster. I don't think there should be an official policy of what is too dirty for the front page. I just think the people who vote for the front page should consider for a minute all aspects of the question "Is this page worthy of showcasing Wikipedia?". Perhaps wherever this voting is being done, there should be a reminder that not everyone in the world is interested in Japanese video games and netBSD. Anal sex made a good point. If it were well written enough, would you want gokkun or forceful anal fisting to be on the front page. All of you who claim to think anything goes have to admit that if the front page of the Wikipedia had the phrase "swallows a partner's semen or spits it into a partner's mouth," it doesn't just make the Wikipedia look like a site only for certain people. It proves to a minor degree that it is a site only for certain people. A majority of people on Earth would think the Wikipedia not for everybody if the featured article was XRatedMidgets.com_(website), no matter how well researched it was.

I would certainly agree that people voting for featured articles for the front page may consider this issue, but I am very much against saying that we should only place a certain subset of "clean" articles there. If there is a member of the public, who is strongly put off by the fact that Wikipedia writes about bishojo games and considers them worthy of the front page, then I think I would not be alone in saying that we probably don't need that person as a contributor, as he would be unable to restrain his POV anyway.

I don't think we need to yield to "general public". What exactly would happen if your grandma sees an article on anal sex (assuming this is a quality and encyclopedic article)? Would she refuse to contribute? Would she not buy a printed version? Would she write her congressman and ask him to close Wikipedia? Would she wirte him and ask not to fund Wikipedia? What exactly would happen that is so bad for us that we should sacrifice our basic non-negotiable principle of NPOV? Saying that "sex is dirty" is POV and by not placing sex-related articles on the FP we are, in effect, saying that sex is dirty. This is completely and totally unacceptable at Wikipedia. Paranoid 22:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...you could equally argue that putting sex-related articles on the main page is also POV: the POV that that certain sex acts aren't dirty. — Matt Crypto 00:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not at all: it merely expresses the POV that information is not dirty or bad. NPOV does endorse an attitude saying that factual information is good. The very act of building an encyclopedia is liberal (in the classical, enlightenment sense).

I would agree with everything you said, Paranoid, except that I believe that the main page is the one exception to the rule. Sure, censorship of sex-related articles is unacceptable at Wikipedia. But the front page of any website serves two purposes: first to quickly get across the most important information about the site, and second to convince the person that they should actually enter the site. It's just common sense to have strict rules about the main page. No one is advocating that these rules apply anywhere else. Also, don't forget that some people receive the article of the day by email. If it's getting emailed to people, then I think that's even more reason to have strict policy on what we choose the article to be. --Sean Kelly 09:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't duplicate it's dirtiest article on the cover. Do wikipedians consider this one of it's many disadvantages?

I believe that something along the lines of the "grandma test" that Sean Kelly proposed is a good idea. Contributors like myself, for example, would directly benefit: I usually view Wikipedia on public computers, so articles on questionable topics, regardless of whether the article is questionable, could conceivably get me kicked off. Although the distinction between pornography and an article about pornography are very clear to me, the system administrator of the computer lab I'm in would probably ignore or overlook this distinction. If I load the Wikipedia main page when I'm in sight of an adminstrator and it happens to feature an even slightly inappropriate article, I could easily lose the trust that I am using the computers productively. As a purely practical matter, the main page should not feature articles that could get someone kicked off a public computer. I know for sure that I would read and contribute to Wikipedia considerably less if that happened; the front page has a much greater impact than just attracting new members to the Wikipedia community. Qoph 20:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just want to make three points here (besides expressing my indignation, which I did).

1. In my view, Wikipedia doesn't currently have it as a goal to be family-friendly, conservative-friendly, heterosexual-friendly or generally be especially friendly to anyone in particular. It is also not the goal to make Wikipedia work-safe, even though this aspect is considered, for example, when placing images on pages like Brain or Vagina. The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer explicitly warns users that Wikipedia may contain objectionable content. Some of you understand this, but chose to argue simply that the Main page is a special case purely for practical reasons of attracting more readers and contributors. This brings me to my next point.
2. It is not a goal of Wikipedia to attract the largest possible readership. Yes, this is something we keep in mind, but this is not the reason, this is not the "why". First and foremost, we strive to make "a reliable and free encyclopedia - indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history" *, not to make the most popular encyclopedia or the most popular Internet resource. We can certainly improve our popularity by adding links to trivia, current issues or anniversaries on our front page, but only as long as this does not conflict with our primary goal. I strongly feel that limiting what articles can be featured on the main page goes contrary to the main goal of this project, and it's not even clear at all that it would increase our popularity (sexual topics are popular - by adding them to the front page you attract a great number of average readers, while you risk alienating a few people from the "conservative" fringe, who would likely be put off by the NPOV immorality of the site anyway).
3. Finally, I want to emphasise (though I am aware that some people here may initially disagree) that not every potential contributor is welcome. Generally Wikipedia recognizes the fact that its users "come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views" and tries to accomodate everyone, but you will probably agree that people who vehemently oppose our main principle of neutrality in both beliefs and in their edits are not particulaly useful to the site. We may be tolerant, we may be patient, but users like User:Ciz harm Wikipedia much more than they help it (if they help it at all). I am not being elitist, unfriendly or judgemental here, I am just saying that realistically not every person can be a good contributor to Wikipedia, and allowing somewhat "objectionable" articles on the main page is a litmus test for their tolerance, which is necessary for working on any Wiki. If we were to consider a hypothetical case of a visitor seeing the Main page while the article on Anal sex is featured there, going off his rocker and deciding (despite the rest of the content on the page being clearly benign) that this site is worse than Rotten.com, I am convinced that this hypothetical visitor would not be likely to become a great contributor. It is very possible that (assuming he didn't see the Anal sex featured article) when he would eventually find articles he strongly disagrees with and, being the intolerant person he is, would start repeatedly vandalising Wikipedia, forcing his values on everyone else. Let me iterate that we are not talking about someone wincing, thinking "Oh, did these guys really need to put "Anal sex" on the front page?" and then going on with some caution to explore what else this "Wikipedia" has to offer, we are talking about a person, who would be put off of reading and contributing by seeing something he disagrees with.

Hope this helps you to see the other side of the problem and makes you rethink whether Wikipedia really needs to be populist and what use would that have. Paranoid 11:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I might deserve this diatribe if I were suggesting censoring all of Wikipedia... but. There seems to be an difference in the perception of reality here. Fine then, I just have one question for you: Should the article on Anal Sex be allowed to be the article of the day? Yes/No? --Sean Kelly 01:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote my "diatribe", as Qoph requested. As for your question, I think the answer is really obvious. I would be in favour of Skullfucking on the main page, if that article were to be written, to achieve "featured" standard and if there weren't better candidates at that moment. Paranoid 11:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paranoid, I posted my reply to you on your talk page. Qoph 01:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear distinction here between users who view Wikipedia as their personal playspace and those who view it as a resource that should reach the widest possible readership. Just what the hell right does any user have saying that people they don't even know should stay away and won't be missed? I could just as easily say the same about any user with that attitude, but I won't. Filiocht

Request for policy on Main Page inclusion

I think it would be reasonable to implement the policy that featured articles which a large proportion of readers would likely object to should not be featured on the Main Page. I don't think it's a problem that "objectonable" articles are promoted to featured status, but it seems that when they are presented on the front page, Wikipedia stands to lose potential readers and contributors and exposes itself to calls for censorship (by governments, for instance). I think there should be an informal judgement on such articles – if an article is generally judged as being objectionable to many, it would not be featured on the front page.

Do you suport such a policy, or have ideas about how it would work (or fail)? --Twinxor 23:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC

This discussion has taken place before; it was agreed as one of the conditions of disallowing 'nonactionable' complaints against FACs that some FAs would be marked as unsuitable for the main page blurb. +sj + 20:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article that sparked this debate may not have crossed the line, but we should certainly avoid giving offense by forcing visitors to see things they do not want to, on the Main Page as on any other page. Readership of most articles is already placed in the context of the article subject and title; the Main Page (and the content that goes out in the daily-article emails) has no such focused context. +sj +

Ok, this just might be my extreme like of anime talking, but. I read the article I think that the whole thing is fine, its informative, NPoV, and the links to sites with nudity had warnings on them, if you click them then its your fualt, they had warnings. They may be extremely suggestive, but practically any advertisment, even some for kids, will have some sexual reference no matter how subliminal. Should we ban these to? Ban all ads from tv because of sexual reference? What about anime? Practically all anime will have a chick with tight clothes or something of the like, not to mention a fair bit having sexual suggestions, should we ban them too? Advertisments and anime dont have warnings or censor things? Why should wikipedia have them? So you goto en.wikipedia.org and up comes a page, "The following page contains information that may be offensive to people who dont know that pornographic or explicit material exists, Do you wish to continue or be sent to a searh page?" Good one. Wikipedia isn't a Encyclopedia, its massive online wiki-resource the sites with nudity are a resource, anime and hentai infomation are rescourses, and so is the main page. As long as they dont show anything considered explicit its fine. I will say it again just to remind you, those pictures are NOT explicit! The information is not explicit or sexually discriptive and the sites with explicit material on them have warnings. Gelsamel

Honestly, I'm not sure that article really crossed the line. I think Anal Sex would, though. I realize practically every article will have some controversy, but I'm only talking about the ones a lot of people will likely object to. --Twinxor 00:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to help make this into policy. I'm going to jot some things down right now, feel free to use the following. --Sean Kelly 00:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Editorial: This issue is going to come up no matter what. I would like to see policy one way or the other. I am fine if I lose this argument, but let's make it official that there will be no censorship of the Main Page. Also in our discussion, let's try to avoid saying things like "people shouldn't be offended..." or "the world is not sugar-coated" or "anal sex is popular, and everyone masturbates". The issue is not what is "appropriate" but rather whether we should make an effort to tone down what the user first sees. This is not a forum to spout off why we hate the FCC. I hope this keeps things focused)

Issue: The content of the Main Page should be restricted/censored.

Possible outcomes

No: it will be official policy that the Main Page is no different than any other page in Wikipedia. No article should be restricted from being featured.

Yes: a policy may be drafted which resticts the content of the Main Page, either by naming specific articles, or exact topic. The policy would, of course, be created by the community.

Arguments against (summarized)

• Wikipedia is not intended to be popular, but a store of fact-checked articles. If people are offended enough to not use Wikipedia, then the project is not at a loss.
• It would be a waste of time to try and decide what is offensive and what is not. Therefore we can't say an article is inappropriate for the main page.
• By censoring the Main Page, we are attacking the integrity of Wikipedia and what it stands for. People who worked to write an "offensive" article might feel like their work is being looked down upon.

Arguments for (summarized)

• If someone is extremely offended by an article on the Main Page, they will leave, vandalize, or worse. We should, therefore, disallow the few articles that are most likely to cause this response.
• In its effort to "work for the common good", Wikipedia should seek to include every single (rational) person who visits. "Inappropriate material" on the Main Page could give some users the wrong idea about the motives of the project.

Things to consider

• No: If an article has reached Featured status, that means it is a quality-checked article—it is appropriate for the Main Page.
• No: Wikipedia already has a disclaimer. This issue has been dealt with.
• No: Topics, such as sex are considered objectionable by a minority, but the rest of potential readers may consider coverage of such material an advantage of Wikipedia.
• Yes: Wikipedia does not allow lewd pictures in articles. This means that there is already some idea of what is appropriate and what is not.
• Yes: Articles do not have to be sexual to be offensive, take the GNAA for example.
• Yes: Some people receive the article of the day via email.

To your last point: this may not be so important, because the people who have signed up for for emails probably know what they're getting into. I think another point is that it's worthwhile to make Wikipedia safe for work (at least at workplaces that allow you to goof off) like Qoph mentioned above. And yes, I think it's important to restate that this is about presentation, not censorship.

Thinking some more about the policy, I think it would be a bad idea to automatically make every article "prove" its innocuous nature. Only if there's a consensus that an article would be objectionable would it be left off the Main Page. --Twinxor 05:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would hate to see anal sex or masterbation on the frontpage of wikipedia (if there is an actual page for that, which i dont doubt) but the pictures and text displayed in that front page were not explicit or offending in anyway, in fact, I would assume that it was "clean" in that sense of the word untill I read the actuall article, the anime displayed as pictures is less "threatening" then many anime out at the moment. BUT I think its obvious that if they were going to put anal sex or masterbation as the featured article they would not put pictures there or any explicit detail. Not to mention that while searching on the net THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP, there is no way you can stop a picture from not being censored there is always a un-cesored copy, when going to sites if your treatened or isulted or imtimidated by explitcite material of any form, you should not be searching the net, because I assure you one day you will come to a site which will offend you greatly. Seriously, if my grandma was here, she wouldn't be offended (no shes not weird lol), anyway if your offended by the article you should stop reading. If you keep on reading its your own fualt, as for the presentation arguement, that may be so (though i can't see how this specific article distroys the presentation) but thats upto wikipedia's staff the can stuff their presentation and that wouldn't change the fact that this is THE BEST sorce for any educational infomation in the world. Gelsamel

I'm not so worried about pictures, as Wikipedia already has a policy to avoid unecessary lewdness. I think it's reasonable to assume that many people would be offended by a graphic discussions of sex, even though I am not.

The point was made earlier that Wikipedia should "put its best foot forward" when choosing how to introduce itself to new readers, and that's really all I'm hoping for. I'm not trying to censor the article or take away its educational value. --Twinxor 20:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC

Graphic?? I dont see how that was at all graphic, or detailed explicitly in anyway for that matter. They talked about Hentai games and the such informatively (Ie. Hentai games are such and such blah blah blah) no graphic explicit detail about the games at all just what they are and so on. Gelsamel

Like I said, I'm not talking about that article. --Twinxor 01:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a couple of things: first, the second bullet under "arguments for" above is written in a non-neutral and straw man way -- this argument is not about a particular issue, nor is it about what people consider sinful. This discussion can't even be taken seriously if it's going to be worded that way. Second, the mention of "or worse" in the first bullet should not be taken lightly. If we are going to allow a true anything-goes approach for MPFA (and this will inevitably lead the aggressive types to push the envelope ever farther), we'd best be prepared for the consequences of featuring an article with dangerous, anarchist-cookbook type stuff or something that might be illegal in some part of the world. Jgm 20:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bottom links

I suggest to change the links under the TFC from "Archive - By mail - More featured articles" to "Archive - More featured articles - Subscribe". The order seems slightly more logical to me and the link description for subscription would be more clear. I don't see that any template is used at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 12, 2004 for these bottom links, so I can't make these changes myself. Please, comment on these suggestions and if there are no objections, let someone who knows how and has the permissions (as opposed to mere Wikipedians like myself) make the change. Paranoid 11:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See if it works for the 2005 archive by editing template:TFAfooter. --mav 04:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it worked. So I changed it for the 2005. Paranoid 23:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old featured articles

Hasn't the article on Homo floresiensis already been on the main page? And why was SARS up there yesterday, but just for a few minutes? --NoPetrol 03:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(a) It might have been in one of the other sections, but it was not a featured article; and (b) No, it wasn't, although you might have been looking at a cached version. →Raul654 03:04, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jan 18 entry - feedback

Please see the Talk page for that entry. ( regarding the final sentence of the lead paragraph of First Crusade) Ancheta Wis 10:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Walpole

Can someone please fix there error that I have pointed out on Talk:Robert Walpole that has propagated itself to the main page in the featured article section. Jooler 13:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. →Raul654 18:54, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Request

The history of Russia is essentially that of its many nationalities, each with a separate history and complex origins, but bound together by the thousand-year-old tradition of Russian statehood. From the late fifteenth century until the early twentieth century, Russia was constituted as an imperial monarchy ruling a tightly centralized, contiguous expanse of territories and peoples. By World War I, the Russian tsars, unlike the British and the Americans, controlled an empire that moved across land, not water, and that was more political than commercial. The strains of the war led to the collapse of the empire, and eventually gave way to the creation of the Soviet Union. Despite its façade of federalism, the Soviet Union remained essentially an empire, held together by the Communist Party rather than tsar. Most Russians gave little thought to any distinction between the two before the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, as Communist Party rule was collapsing, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic secured legislation giving Russian laws priority over Soviet laws and declared its independence in late 1991.

172 19:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not alone in wanting to see yet another Russia-related articles on the main page, here's another suggestion:

While Russia has existed as a state for over a thousand years, the history of post-Soviet Russia is brief, dating back only to the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991. Since gaining its independence, Russia claimed to be the legal successor to Soviet Union on the international stage. However, Russia lost its superpower status amid serious economic and political challenges in the 1990s. Scrapping the socialist central planning and state ownership of property of the Soviet era, Russia attempted to build an economy with elements of market capitalism, with often painful results. The development of post-Soviet political institutions has also produced mixed results. By the early-1990s Russia had a system of multiparty electoral politics, but in recent years the presidency has been increasing its already tight control over parliament, regional officeholders, and civil society.

172 02:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles protected?

Old featured article are still protected. I spot checked a few back to January 1, 2005, and they were all still protected. Is this intentional? Unless someone objects soonish, I'll unprotect them. dbenbenn | talk 00:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, 24 hours, no one's objected, so I'll start. dbenbenn | talk 00:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. (In fact, I suspect the last few weeks of '04 are also protected). →Raul654 03:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done. The protected ones went back to December 4. dbenbenn | talk 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

should choose one of these

• power failure
• circuit breaker
• Uninterruptible power supply

--AlbertCahalan

Albert, first, when you post, it's essential that you sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. Now, none of these articles you suggest are featured articles, although they do have potential (Circuit breaker probably has the most potential). If you want to have them featured, you have to nominate them on Wikipedia:featured article candidates. →Raul654 05:16, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Either USD or US$, but not USD$

The current featured article blurb on the Great Lakes Storm of 1913 uses the monetary designation "USD$", which is redundant redundant and not part of the original article. Either USD or US$ is acceptable use in various circles. Could you please choose one of the correct designations? (I'd suggest US$, because I think it's better recognized in text not specifically devoted to currency conversion or trading.) Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured article on April 14

I would like Tamil language to be featured on April 14, the new year day in Tamil calendar. At least, one other user (User:Vadakkan) has expressed a similiar wish. (sorry Raul for posting it in your talk page earlier instead of here) -- Sundar 04:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Request

The known history of the Yosemite area started with Miwok and Paiute peoples who inhabited the central Sierra Nevada region of California that now includes Yosemite National Park. At the time the first non-indigenous people entered the area, a band of Miwok called the Ahwahnechee lived in Yosemite Valley. Conflict ensured in the mid 19th century and the Mariposa Battalion pursued the Ahwahnechee into the Valley. The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoia were ceded to California as a state park in 1864. Naturalist John Muir and others soon became alarmed about over-exploitation of the area and helped push through the creation of Yosemite National Park, in 1890. It would not be until 1906 that the Valley and Grove would be added. Park jurisdiction was at first under the United States Army's Fourth Cavalry Regiment then in 1916 it was transfered to the National Park Service. The failed fight to save Hetch Hetchy Valley from becoming a reservoir and hydroelectric power plant in the early 20th century sparked a great deal of controversy that polarized the nation. Since then about 94% of the park has been set aside in a highly protected wilderness area.

) --mav 03:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of seeing this on the front page?

I probaly should say up front that I've put a lot of work into this article myself...

The Krag-Jørgensen is a repeating bolt action rifle designed by the Norwegians Ole Herman Johannes Krag and Erik Jørgensen in the late 19th century. It was adopted as a standard arm by Denmark, the USA and Norway.

The most distinctive feature of the Krag-Jørgensen action was its magazine. While other rifles of its era used a box magazine, the magazine of the Krag-Jørgensen was integral with the receiver (the part of the rifle that houses the operating parts), featuring an opening on the right hand side with a hinged cover. The cartridges were inserted through the side opening, and were pushed up, around, and into the action by a spring follower.

This presented both advantages and disadvantages compared with the standard top-loading "box" magazine; among other things, using a "stripper clip" to reload was impossible. At the same time, unlike a top-loading magazine, the Krag-Jørgensen's magazine could be topped up without opening the rifle's bolt. The relative complexity of manufacturing this magazine is possibly one reason why few countries adopted the Krag-Jørgensen.

Today, the Krag-Jørgensen is a popular collector's rifle, and is loved by shooters for its smooth action.

If possible, the 21st of April would be an excelent day to run this, as it's the date it was adopted as a standard arm in Norway =). WegianWarrior 13:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)