Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 4 >>

Contents

RSS feed

We should mention the RSS feed somewhere, probably as a link to Wikipedia:Syndication. See Wikipedia:General complaints#RSS Feed for Featured Articles. Bovlb 14:37:25, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

FA front page templates

Here are two templates that should be of interest to those with new FA articles either about to appear on the front page or that have appeared there. Simply insert the date the article appeared/will appear on the front page and paste the template into the talk page.

Today's featured article/Archive 4 will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on Insert Month and date here, Insert year here.

and

Main Page trophy Today's featured article/Archive 4 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on Insert Month and date here in that order, Insert year here.

Thanks to Hydnjo for coming up with this.--Alabamaboy 19:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • As much as I would love full credit, this template is actually the result of a collaboration between Rick Block and myself. hydnjo talk 22:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


2006 archive

I'm going to create the 2006 TFA archive sometime in the next few weeks to a month. If anybody has any ideas on improvments, then please tell me about them. :) --mav 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, not to step on any toes, but I have created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2006 and Template:TodaysFABar2006, heavily modelled on the ones for 2005. I hope they all work as they should. One change I think we can safely make is to dispense with the templates like Template:TFAforJanuary2005, using JanuaryCalendar2006Source directly (perhaps the ones from earlier years can be subst:ed and deleted?).
Lots of subpages need filling up (most of the daily pages for January, and the monthly and daily pages for the other months; for some reason, a few in September 2006 already existed). -- ALoan (Talk) 03:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To what degree...

... is a request like this one um, bogus? The actress's birthday was in no way relevant to the (sycophantic) article that somehow made it onto the main page. BYT 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

About as relevant as 30 January is to the date of execution of Charles I of England - see above. In fact, assuming that 30 January was old style and so incorrect anyway these days, slightly more relevant. Is there a problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. He was the king of England, and that was a notable historical event. She is a B-list actress whose birthdate is of moment only to members of her immediate family. And, perhaps, her official or unofficial press agents. BYT 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What exactly is an "unofficial press agent"? You seem to be suggesting that Extraordinary Machine has some improper motive in writing up the article, getting it accepted as a featured article, and then getting it featured on the front page, or that Raul654 has some improper motive in accepting the unanimous support with no objections (save for the comment that it may have too many references) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KaDee Strickland or the suggestion that 14 December is an appropriate day for KaDee Strickland to appear on the Main Page? Assume good faith. As I have said before, if you think there is a problem with the article, discuss it on the talk page; if you think it does not deserve featured status, bring it up on WP:FARC. (I see that you are doing both, actually, and I am sure the article will be improved as a result.)
As it happens, I don't care one jot for this particular article or its subject, but the bottom line is that pretty much any article that is notable enough to avoid being deleted is capable of being featured, and pretty much any featured article is capable of being featured (for one day only, mind) on the Main Page. Certainly, this article is in a much better state than Roy Orbison (which was also on the Main Page recently, and is now in danger of losing its featured article status). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


  • All good points, and thank you for sharing them.
  • I'm afraid you're changing the subject, though. It was totally inappropriate to assign this minor actress's birthday the same editorial level of importance as the date of the execution of Charles I of England.
  • Running the article on her birthday thus served no legitimate editorial purpose. (What I'm trying to figure out is whether it served as a token of thanks for her participation in submitting Original research for the the article, which is, for all the world, what it looks like from a distance, though I personally have no idea what actually happened.)
  • Running a front-page puff piece on a minor actress's birthday is the kind of thing a website devoted exclusively to singing this actress's praises would have done. We're not that kind of website. BYT 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. My pearls of wisdom are worth what you paid for them ;)

I don't think I am changing the subject - you mentioned press agents. I'm still not entirely clear who you think is a press agent, or indeed what an unofficial press agent is (do you mean a fan? I have no problem at all with fans writing featured articles, so long as they meet the criteria).

At the moment, Charles I has not been assigned a main page date, although I imagine that Raul654 will accede to the request in the absence of a pressing reason to do otherwise. Why shouldn't a biographical featured article appear on the main page on the subject's date of birth or death?

Do you have any evidence of original research? From my brief review of the article talk page, the author has said that the quotes all come from external sources. The article certainly says quite a lot about not very much, but so what. Surely one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that we can have extensive articles on almost any topic. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is actually pretty straightforward. I think it was a bad call to run this article on her birthday, given that she's utterly obscure and the birthday has no editorial relevance whatsoever. Either you agree that that was a bad call or you don't. I'd be curious about your position, though, inasmuch as Raul isn't answering the phone on this.
Faced with a similarly obscure living subject, whose birthdate connects in no way to the article content, I feel we should not go the vanity press route and run the article on his/her birthday. Agree? Disagree?
And no -- I don't have any evidence of original research. If I did, I would be filing an RfC. It's all circumstantial, and I realize it's very likely that I'm wrong. But it still smells funny, and until I see cites on her quotes, I'm unconvinced. (And by the way, even if she did not participate in the article in any way, which is what has been claimed, we are still faced with the problems that the article that showed up on the mainpage yesterday a) might as well have been written by her press agent, and b) sailed through the process with massive citation and neutrality problems. BYT 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Shrug. I try not to second-guess Raul654. He has the job; he makes the calls. But I really don't understand your position. You say she is obscure, and so you say we should not put her article on the main page on her birthday. But if she is so obscure, surely it does not matter when the article is on the main page? In any event, it seems to me that the birthday does connect with the article content. Rather than pandering to the vanity of the subject, surely we are, in effect, boasting "look: it is X's birthday today, and we have this great article about them"?
If you suspect (let alone have evidence of) original research and/or POV, surely you should (a) discuss it on the talk page and/or (b) edit the article to delete it and/or (c) propose the article on WP:FARC. I'm not sure how much good an RfC is going to do.
Anyway, back to the original question: as far as I can see, the editor, the voters on FAC and Raul654 all acted in good faith. End of story. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


My position -- which you claim not to understand, but which even a cursory review of this conversation will reveal -- is that a mainpage article should connect to a specific date when there is a legitimate editorial reason for doing so. Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is the way you yourself explained this matter, back on Raul654's talk page.
There was no legitimate editorial reason in play here, even though you appear to want to talk around that fact and Raul654 has taken a vow of silence. BYT 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand - you seem to be suggesting that we should avoid putting a biographical featured article on the Main Page on a date that some people (me included) think is relevant to the subject of the article (that is, the subject's date of birth or death). If you think the date is not relevant, why does it matter? Would you have objected to it appearing on 13 December or 15 December?
I can quite understand Raul654 staying silent - he does not need to explain his decisions. It is a bit late to ask him to change is mind now, two days later. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Re: If you think the date is not relevant, why does it matter?
Because giving KaDee Strickland a birthday present of front-page media coverage on a global media source ...
...or appearing to give KaDee Strickland a birthday present of front-page media coverage on a global media source...
...smacks of bias and ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a pro da machine, a vanity press, or an advertising medium.
Now, I think that's sufficiently clear. Or is there another variation on "I really don't understand what you're saying" in the pipeline here? BYT 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of...

...featuring Wikipedia on the main page on January 15, Wikipedia day and en's 5th anniversary? -- Seth Ilys 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of matching mainpage articles up with anniversaries unless the date matches up with a notable historical event that's relevant to the article. That's just one man's view, though.
On a lighter note -- wouldn't it be more entertaining, and perhaps give newcomers a better sense of the project, if we got Criticism of Wikipedia up to featured status -- I think it's a fine article -- and ran that on the mainpage someday? BYT 19:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be graitious self-aggrandizement. (And let's not forget wikipedia:Avoid self references) Raul654 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

True enough. BYT 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I though the reason the Wikipedia article hasn't on the Main Page is that it that it would look incredibly pompus. IMHO, we should use NPOV on the Main Page and not advertise ourselves.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great to feature it on the main page on the day the English wikipedia reaches 1 million articles, I don't consider that 'advertising'. --WS 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like that isn't happening, either. (-; However, Triumph of the Will isn't entirely inappropriate. . . for reasons best left to ironic speculation. Anville 12:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for improving TFA selection guidelines

I've posted a first draft of a TFA selection guidelines proposal. It needs much refinement, which I will do the best I am able over the next little while. Meanwhile, hopefully there is some input and feedback... --Tsavage 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a solution in search of a problem Raul654 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Tsavage has made it clear he thinks there is a problem, but hasn't gathered wide support for that view. I agree with Raul and the status quo - TFA can and should be virtually any featured article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree complete with Raul654; however, I would like to know what prompted your descion descion to change TFA guidelines. TomStar81 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto Bunchofgraphes and Raul. A solution in search of a problem. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. Sometimes it takes a solution to identify a problem. The current policy and status quo say that TFA is whatever Raul654 decides it is. In my opinion, putting important content decisions unilaterally in the hands of one person is not good Wikipedia policy. As a, um, good Wikipedian, I'm attempting to be a little proactive about that. --Tsavage 02:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
He also fails or promoted candiadates on WP:FAC. The reason for having one person is to avoid disputes about what is or is not promoted, and what does or does not appear on the front page. However, there is a team who perform the failures and promotions at WP:FPC and WP:FLC, and who edit WP:DYK and WP:ITN... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain that putting an FA on the main page that was only nominated for FA status 17 days ago (€2 commemorative coins) implies lax standards.
I'm not especially criticising the article itself (and obviously I'm content to have subject matter from my area feature on the main page), but it seems rather premature to put such a recent FA up.
It does seem wrong to have the main page FAs, something that impacts greatly on the public conciousness of Wikipedia, seemingly randomly selected. Also the choices do display the bias of those who choose, whereas a clear set of guidelines (subject area rotation, etc.) would surely mitigate against that.
The current mechanism just doesn't seem, well, professional.
zoney ♣ talk 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I kinda like that any day you can stumble across an unexpected article on the main page. It makes it more interesting. When we are promoting FAs fast enough that selection becomes a real issue, then maybe we'll need guidelines. Right now I agree that guidelines are a solution in search of a problem. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement that an article has to have been an FA for a long time in order to make the main page; to the contrary, as soon as an article becomes featured, many people request it for the main page (something which I don't particularly care for but can live with). Raul654 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for proposed guidelines: I have some disagreements with proposed selection guidelines:
"Whenever possible, TFAs should deal with primary topics in the general subject areas they concern: "tissue" not "Kleenex", "personal computer" not "Apple Macintosh", "operating system" not "Microsoft Windows XP", "acting" and "motion pictures" not "KaDee Strickland"."

I've always seen the TFA as a way for WP to show that it has comprehensive articles on a wide variety of subjects, and even the most niche of them. I admire your intentions of wanting to separate education from commerce, but if an article has been identified as featured then it should already be written in a verifiable form and neautral tone.

Articles based mainly on sources like news media (newspapers, magazines) or official product literature would generally not meet this standard.

I agree with not using official product literature, but not with dismissing all newspapers and magazines.

FAs should NOT be scheduled in order to create a topical (e.g. current event) tie-in, in fact, that should be actively avoided. No "Christmas" on Dec 25 or anywhere therabouts; no "KaDee Strickland" on KaDee's birthday. In this respect, TFA should demonstrate the quality represented by FAs by deliberately not resorting to common promotional techniques and an appeal to popular trivia.

How is putting a featured article on a person's birthday trivial or a promotional technique? No specific product is being promoted. I'd consider putting a featured article about KaDee Strickland on the main page the day before her movie opens as a promotional technique, but not her birthday.--Fallout boy 20:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (and was it just me, or did the guidelines have a bit of an anti-KaDee Strickland bias?)

FFS rule creep - I've added some counter-claims on the said page. If an article is good enough to be Featured, it's good enough to "front page" it, else we'll end up with FAC being Peer Review #2. --PopUpPirate 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If an article is good enough to be Featured, it's good enough to "front page" it, else we'll end up with FAC being Peer Review #2. Yes, you're spot on with that. My intention in drafting this was to suggest a reasonable procedural separation between FAC and TFA, because the process in FAC clearly doesn't assure 100% "great" articles (all FAs aren't "good enought"), and is already in many cases a "peer review" (major revisions over weeks and months on FAC). Why should oversights and errors in one area (mis-identifying FAs), be automatically amplified in another (putting them on the front page)? The fact that there is an active FARC, and controversial recent noms (see Bulbasaur for an example, an extreme one, but not atypical in respect to quality and promotion concerns). "Rule creep" describes what Raul654 commented above, that this TFA proposal is "clearly a solution in search of a problem". If a a problem exists, then independent guidance for TFA worth considering. --Tsavage 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Does adding more layers of review actually help? Right now, you have the original editors, the portal editors (who seem to have quality tests of their own -- for example. the Automotive portal has FA's and TFA's), there are the peer reviewers and the featured article reviewers (plus, working somehow off to the side, the 'Good Article' selectors) - then there are the FARC reviewers and now the TFA reviewers? If the articles that come out of four or five sets of eyes aren't good enough, will adding a sixth set of eyes at this stage help more? You might think so at first sight - but I seriously doubt it.
The pool of intelligent and interested people who are manning these various review stages - and the amount of time they are prepared to devote to reviewing articles - is a fixed resource. If you add another layer of review, some of the people who would have been doing PR or FAC (or Good Article selection or whatever) will be doing this instead.
If the rate at which reviewers find problems is a fixed number per hour they work - then it doesn't make any difference how many layers of review you have - the average number of errors in articles will be the same. So adding an extra hurdle for articles to get onto the front page would certainly result in the front page articles getting better. But the people who did that review are not doing peer review of FAC reviews - so the quality of articles that make it through PR and FAC would be worse. The result of adding another layer to the pile of layers there already are can only be to increase the quality of 365 articles a year - to the detriment of thousands of articles per year due to the reduced number of eyes on them during PR and FAC. The average quality of Wikipedia stays the same - but you end up with a tiny set of a few hundred superb articles instead of a few thousand pretty darned good ones.
Adding another layer of review actually worsens the quality of more articles than it improves - this is a mathematical truth. We shouldn't do it. In fact, there is a strong case to be made for eliminating 'Good Articles' and 'Peer Review' and a bunch of other review stages - thereby freeing up more reviewers to keep an eye on FAC and allowing more articles of better quality to pass through FAC successfully. In a mathematical sense: The mean quality of Wikipedia articles would stay the same - but our median quality would improve. There would be fewer 'super-quality' articles but more useful, well written ones that are useful to the general public. Adding extra layers creates 'elite' articles - but only to the detriment of the general quality of Wikipedia. IMHO, this is not a productive thing.
Wikipedia is NOT about sieving through a pile of junk to find one great article to put on the front page - it's about making a generally useful encyclopedia. Adding more layers of review is contrary to that goal.
SteveBaker 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article choice is news

The Korea Times: Wikipedia Features StarCraft Story: is this the first time Wikipedia's choice of FA is the subject of a newspaper article? -- user:zanimum

Wikipedia, the globally renowned online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Thursday picked up the article on StarCraft and its impact on Korea as a feature story of the day.
StarCraft refers to a real-time strategy game that can be enjoyed by multiple users through the Internet. It is all the rage in Korea, the nation where the Internet access is ubiquitous. Korea Times, 26-Jan-2006
Yes, that's interesting. It is an apparently positive Korean domestic piece, and WP is quoted liberally ti flesh out the bit. All the more reason to make sure FAs are all they're supposed to be, and that the process isn't subject to easy oversight and tampering. --Tsavage 16:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will

I strongly object to featuring this on March 3. Despite my objection, this article is now set to be featured. I don't like saving criticism for the 24 hour countdown, so I thought I'd make my objection heard now. See also the article's talk, and my explanation of how fair use works on WT:RFAR. There is no way that we can feature this without changing the way the article uses images now. Either the images are PD and can go on Commons, which is meant for such galleries, or they are fair use and should not be used so excessively in the article at all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Our featured article of the day has legal problems

Triumph of the Will has a gallery of fair use pictures. There was a notice at the bottom of the article before it was featured on the main page asking readers to view Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg and the article talk for a discussion of the various images' copyrights, which appeared to imply the article's images are PD -- a rather poor excuse for not just tagging them as such and uploading them to Commons, which is for galleries (Wikipedia is not for galleries of images). However, the article talk only stated:

Now from what I gathered from discussing both with Riefenstahl and with producer at Synapse Films (they released Triumph of the Will on DVD in the early 2000's) copyright status can and has been avoided in various "versions" of the film (on DVD or VHS or in screening rights). These are versions that may have been held, like the one in the Library of Congress that Synapse utilized as 'public domain' or may have been edited slightly to avoid (is that the right word ?) infringement on Transit (or Riefenstahl for that matter). I have no idea how accurate these claims are but it may help explain why you have so many differing opinions on this matter of who, if anyone, holds the film rights.

The image talk page however, had the input of someone from the German Wikipedia, who stated:

In deWP we tag PD only images older than 100 years. The reason is the fact that nearly all pictures are to be evaluated as photo work and so a protection of 70 years pma is given.

Template talk:PD-Germany, which was cited by the discussion as evidence that the image was PD, has a notice at the bottom stating that the template was TfDed due to terribly inappropriate wording, and this was only rectified by altering the template's text. Furthermore, Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg is not even used in Triumph of the Will. From this, I believe we should assume the images are not PD, as there are very stringent laws pertaining to public domain images, especially in Germany. (There was a discussion on IRC earlier about whether the images are PD -- a British statute was cited, which stated that all German works imported into Britain between 1939 and 1951 were in the public domain, but the film was first released in Germany in 1935. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, I believe only United States law applies to it.)

Surprisingly, this troubling issue of fair use/weak claims of public domain, was not addressed by the FAC which passed this article. When it was first suggested for the main page, I brought this issue up. The article was nevertheless slated for the main page. Indignant, I complained in more detail on the TFA talk, and on the article talk. Now today, lo and behold, the article is on the main page, with my complaint having been totally ignored! Since apparently people think this can be just brushed aside nonchalantly because, y'know, them Nazis ain't ever gonna' sue nobody for using their pictures, I've made this excruciatingly detailed and long comment, and I will cross-post it to wherever I feel relevant. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Images. Yes, I know, some will scream m:Avoid copyright paranoia. However, we have insisted on removing fair use images from people's talk pages, even though there is a zero chance of being sued for their use (really, will the US Democratic Party sue us for using their logo in a userbox?), so why should we brush this off when an article supposed to be our best work and appearing on our gateway to the world so blatantly violates the provisions of fair use and/or the definition of a public domain image? Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Order of Saint Patrick

Although I'm sure some people would assume this would be a natural feature for St Patrick's Day, I object. Featuring British orders of knighthood makes us look as pro-unionist and partisan. Slac speak up! 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure, and when OpenBSD get's on the front page, that will make Wikipedia look pro-open source and communist? Feel free to make an Eire-related article feature-quality and then put it up here, then we can look pro-republic and partisan. 65.94.60.22 06:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It would if we deliberately featured it on Bill Gates' birthday. Perhaps another, less work-intensive, solution would be to pick one of 364 other days upon which to put the article on the Main Page. Slac speak up! 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Dude, don't split people's talk, just respond to it. That shit is terrible. 65.95.241.86 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible

to get Sverre of Norway on the main page? Fornadan (t) 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I put up the nomination, you feel free to clean it up. 65.95.241.86 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Somthing funny for April Fools

In a few days time it will be April Fools! Is there a FA related to humour and hasn't been on the main page yet? GizzaChat © 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoo is slated for the April 1 main page. — TKD::Talk 11:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

New RSS feed

Just a note to say that I created an RSS feed that shows the 20 latest entries of Featured Articles, see User:Skagedal/Fafafa. /skagedal... 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued...) and other variations

I have noticed an inconsistency on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2006, with some TFA using (continued...) to link to the entire article, while others use (Continued...), (More...), or (more...). Is there a reason for using these variations? or is one of these preferred and should be used all the time? --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

i would also like instructions on how to do the "boxes" in the correct format. are there any unwritten rules? are some of articles listed above not being mainpaged because they did something wrong in the "box"? Zzzzz 14:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The ones that were justed added to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2006 used (continued...), so that seems to be preferred. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally do not use the write-ups here unless I am having trouble doing one myself or am pressed for time. Otherwise, I tend to do my own (because the ones here tend to be riddled with main-page no-nos). As far as continued vs more, Brian0918 changed that in early April, and (having no objections to it myself) I have tried to use that consistently since. Raul654 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As for (continued...) versus the others, I have no preference except that we be consistent. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is todays article?

What happended to todays article? I cleared my cache, but no new article poped up. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The article on the mainpage won't be listed here, this is where you request articles only. Today's article should be 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal, and it appears on the main page for me; perhaps you cleared your cache too soon? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs

It is on the main page. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

suggestion: new header template

I'd like to suggest that a unique (with a more contextually relevant description) template be made for the Todays Featured Article page, to replace {{Sprotect}} that is used there currently. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page featured article is generally not protected - see User:Raul654/protection. Like any other page, I would guess {{sprotected}} was added temporarily as a result of a particular spate of vandalism. There is {{mprotected}}, but that is used to stop the image on the Main Page being vandalised. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh! whoops. i knew that.. Thanks ;) -Quiddity 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

headline

we already had to put up with university of michigan as a featured article, why must michigan state be up there too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.51.99 (talk • contribs)

School as daily FA

I have scheduled, albeit hesitantly, Hopkins School for May 30th. Raul654 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing FA request

A while back I placed USS Wisconsin on here for a shot at the main page. Today when I visited the page I noticed that the article had been removed, but I do not see a day that has Wisconsin appearing on the main page, nor do I see a main page appeance template on Wisconsin’s talk page. Was the nomination removed, or was this an oversight? TomStar81 05:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad [1] Raul654 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that explains alot. At least you managed to find it. Thanks ;) TomStar81 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you - Wisconsin is on my short list - yes, I keep a text file on my desktop with the articles I plan to run next ;) Raul654 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of knowing if a FA is still candidate for the front page?

Looking over the front page selection discussion page, I have a question: is there any way of knowing if a FA has been looked at and ruled out as a main page candidate? I'm asking because the articles are clearly not being chosen in chronological order of submission (which of course would be a silly idea anyway). But if something has been ruled out or is still under consideration, it would be nice to know.

Or is the list on this discussion page a list of articles still under consideration?

  • AFAIK all featured articles (save a teeny tiny number, such as Wikipedia) are always candidates for the main page. As for the stuff listed here, I've never seen a nomination removed unless the nominator directly withdraws it (for example, the Three Laws of Robotics has been up since January, doesn't even have a suggested box, but is still listed). Staxringold 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Close - of the 980-odd featured articles, there are a handful (4 or so) that I wish to avoid putting on the main page, and I don't intend to re-run any of the 600-or-so that have already appeared on the main page (although I suppose circumstances could change in this regard). Raul654 11:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What are the four? - rst20xx (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reforming lead-paragraph style

I think that the dense lead-paragraph style of the FA box on the mainpage has just become a turn-off to too many of our readers. Phrased from reposed snippets of text from the first couple of article paragraphs, these overreaching attempts at summary simply do not reflect the quality and interest of the articles that they are summarizing. Few in our audience are actually comfortable reading such large, artificial, blocks of text on what should be a headline-oriented frontpage. I would propose instead that the FA box follow some form of the "snippet" style of the three other major mainpage boxes, which readers can appreciate at an easy glance. There are any number of specific formats we could pursue, from a radically-shortened single-sentence summary, to a bullet-point summary of key sections, to a series of enlightening short extracts from the text, and certainly to other possibilities as yet unproposed. Any thoughts?--Pharos 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. First, I reject on its face the notion that there's a problem in the first place. While it's difficult to quantiy, studies by the developers showed that the FA is the most popular thing on the main page after the search box. The FA is probably the most regularly edited thing linked from the main page too. The first thing they teach in buisness school is that if you have a successful product, DON'T CHANGE IT. (The people at Coke learned this the hard way). All the evidence seems to indicate that the FA is doing exactly what it should.
Second, assuming for the moment you are right, it would seem that pruning it to keep it smaller would be the solution, rather than radically altering it to the list format you suggest. First, in addition to my usual comments that it is a degenerate form of prose, the list format is inherently unsuitable for addressing related items of content. What you are in fact proposing is, in fact, artificial - the featured article box is supposed to showcase a featured article (including its prose) and the list you propose just doesn't do it. So it would require major rewriting of the introductions, AND it would be substantially less useful than what we have now. Raul654 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Pharos as well. I feel since they are coming featured articles, the Main Page introductions ought to be of featured article quality. Moving to a list format or some other format that makes the article more basic seems to comprimise that image ("well-written" is, after all, one of the requires for promotion to featured article status). As long as the introductions give decent summaries of the articles in question, and for the most part I believe they do, I don't see anything wrong with the current style. joturner 00:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I would also disagree with any change to the current way FAs are displayed on the front page. The summary in the box is simply the lead section of the article - lead sections are supposed to give a concise summary of the article, and if they don't, it's the article's fault and not FA's. A single sentence summary sounds like a far worse option in that regard, and a bullet-pointed list sounds horribly dumbed-down. If a box of prose is a turn-off to a potential reader, maybe they weren't really looking for an encyclopaedia :) I really don't see why the front page should be 'headline-orientated' as you suggest. Worldtraveller 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I also think this is a solution looking for a problem. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Raul654 and above. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree for most of the above mentioned reasons. There are a few things I'd like to have changed with how and what we put on the main page, but the todays FA is not one of them. It's very good as it is, don't change it. Shanes 02:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, OK, actually to tell the truth I was leaning strongly toward a single-sentence summary myself but wanted to keep things a bit "open" in the discussion. My experience is just that, the well-written prose in a featured article's first 2 or 3 short pararaphs is typically mangled to fit the single-long-paragraph format, which is often somewhat poorly written in a process that is not subject to too much review.--Pharos 03:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Can't say I've ever seen any mangling, or poor writing - the bit on the front page is just the lead section of the article and the only thing that's different is the paragraph breaks are removed. I don't know how it would look with breaks still in, but that's about the only change I'd think might be necessary. Could you point to an example of what you perceive as mangling? Worldtraveller 08:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to this earlier. The example of mangling that prompted my original post was [2] for History of Miami, Florida. At the least I would recommend that the FA box be approved as part of the original FAC process, so that it is subject to serious review in terms of writing style. As it stands now, there is very little collaboration on the boxes at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.--Pharos 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New TFA front page

I like the redesign and merger of TFA and TOFA. However, a few comments:

  • I think we need a more explicit link to the TFA archive than the one buried in the top-left panel. The TFA archive bar provides a quick and simply link to the archives, which is why I added it back here. Raul does not seem the like it :p
  • An increase the number of people reviewing the front-page blurb would help to avoid infelicities in the wording. I think that could be achieved by transluding the blurb for today's FA and tomorrow's FA side-by-side on this page.

Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Like that... (I went for one after the other, as it was easier, but side-by-side would be better, I think) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Where have you hid the main page purge button? Thanks, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cache

What happened to the Sever Purge Cache link for the main page? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FA information incorrect

I apologize for this, but I just now noticed that the current introduction set to be used for the June 9th Featured Article is incorrect; since the article became featured the United States Navy has struck both of their battleships and will be donating them to the public in the coming monthes. The last two sentences of the paragraph should read as follows:

Wisconsin was last decommissioned in September 1991, having earned a total of six battle stars for war service in Korea and WWII, and a Navy Unit Commendation for service during the first Gulf War, and currently functions as a museum ship at Nauticus, The National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Wisconsin was struck from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR) 17 March 2006, and is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship.

Again, I apologize for the oversite. Several pages have been effected by this development, and this one just happened to slip through the cracks. TomStar81 01:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting TFAs

I'm not sure if this has been dealt with in the past, but I notice that the TFA request page contains predominantly self nominations of recently featured articles with no specific date requested. I think it's fair to say that all or nearly all FA writers want their work to appear on the main page, and as a result, I don't see the point of having a process to make such requests. It serves little purpose and shortchanges those who don't know about it. Thus, why don't we add a couple simple guidelines to the TFA request page that would restrict such submissions? I suggest that only two types of requests be allowed—ones for a specific date, and ones for articles that have been FAs for more than a given time period; perhaps 6 months. Furthermore, only allow self-nominations in the first case.

Hopefully this would improve the noise to signal ratio for Raul when he's making these types of decisions, but of course these guidelines would not limit him from putting recently passed FAs on the main page if he so chooses. Remember, he sees all new FAs (he passes them), and if he wants one on the main page soon, he can get it there without an explicit request from the author. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, in practice most articles that have been FAs for 6 months are in dramatically worse shape than ones that have been FAs for a couple of weeks. We'd practically have to peer-review such FAs all over again just to make sure that they haven't degraded too much. :) As you noted, Raul can freely accept, reject, and make TfAs as he wishes, so I don't see the point of restricting nominations unless he would find it more helpful and efficient to do so. From my perspective, it seems that it's better to have too many nominations (within reason) than too few, since it gives more options to choose from and gives more informaiton on those noms, plus it sometimes leads to highly fruitful discussion: for example, the TFA nom on the then-recently-featured Joan of Arc article led to a large-scale effort to improve the article further, which wouldn't have occurred if it hadn't been nominated then. Also, I know at least a few users who actually don't want their Featured Articles to appear on the main page. :) -Silence 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
i suggest making the TFA requests into an OPT-OUT rather than the current OPT-IN method. we can assume that 99% of all FAs want to appear on the mainpage, so the page should be limited to users listing their articles that they dont want to appear on the mainpage (e.g. because they fear the vandalism it causes). how about that? Zzzzz 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
How about both? One page for "opt-out", another for "opt-in"? However, I think the main reason this hasn't already been done is because a single user shouldn't be able to stand in the way of an article appearing on the main page, even if that user is the reason the article was Featured; WP:OWN, after all. Hence, although the person who helped get the saffron article featured didn't want it to appear on the main page, it appeared there anyway. (And really, nothing terrible happened as a result. Vandalism fears are usually overdone.) -Silence 14:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Spangineer's original argument. I agree that most FA authors want their articles to appear on the main page, so why allow the TFA request page to become a mouthpiece for the loudest? The TFA requests page is cluttered with recent features, and the squeaky wheels are getting a lot of the oil. And let's not forget that the TFA requests are not the only options to choose from! This is not a critique of Raul; he does slip in non-requested articles sometimes (I never requested for "Dixie" to get the main page, yet it did). If an article has deteriorated significantly, that's not an argument against allowing older FAs to make the main page. Rather, it's an argument for closer monitoring of the FA queue. If, for example, you see that Raul has scheduled Joan of Arc for the main page on 9 June, you can mount your effort to improve it. I don't see why the TFA request page is necessary for this type of thing. In short, I'm not sure that the rules of the TFA requests need to be changed, but it would be nice to balance things more between FAs that were requested and those that weren't.
As for opting out, that's an interesting issue. There are currently three FAs that I significantly worked on that have not been featured on the main page. I've considered asking for them NOT to be featured the first week of August, since I'll be moving to Japan then and won't have internet access to monitor changes to them. It's not a bad idea. — Amcaja 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"If an article has deteriorated significantly, that's not an argument against allowing older FAs to make the main page. Rather, it's an argument for closer monitoring of the FA queue." - I agree with this. Some of my earliest edits on Wikipedia were to random articles that were scheduled to appear on the main page in a few days, which I thought could do with a lot of improvements before we showcased them. The solution to the quality-degradation is not to forget about old FAs, but to work harder to maintain them. FA status should not be treated as a quality plateau. -Silence 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for main page

I feel that adding USS Wisconsin (BB-64) as the featured article of the day was a rather poor choice. We already had her far more famous sister ship USS Missouri (BB-63) as the featured article of the day back in September of 2005. I don't see there was a need for having this article also appear on the main page. I realize this is after the fact, but I hope some consideration of potential situations like this is made in the future. Asking the question "Have we had something similar featured?" and reviewing past FA's on the main page would be a good step. --Durin 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • All FAs (or virtually all, Raul has decided to hold out a small handful) are eligible to be included on the Main Page. If this were not the case, it might lessen the incentive to improve these articles. A one year span between similar articles is more than enough. Johntex\talk 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently featured

I've finally managed to put my finger on it. This is why I thought TFA was the whole featured article system for so long as a newbie. It's that phrase... "recently featured". That's not true. The articles have been featured for ages. They have just been recently showcased on TFA. Can't this be changed to something less confusing? I would have loved to have known sooner that there were over a thousand of these listed on one page. BigBlueFish 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how we can make it more obvious than "more featured articles" linking to the page will all the featured articles. Raul654 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
By not using the phrase "recently featured". I thought I made it fairly clear. Even "Recently featured here" would be better. Or "Recently showcased". I don't know. BigBlueFish 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"Recently showcased" sounds ok. Titoxd(?!?) 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Many portals also use "Showcased Articles" e.g. Portal:London and Portal:Christianity, which may get confusing, but as long as portals can retain this terminology then it's fine. Brisvegas 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Portals use the 'showcase' terminology because *I* changed most of them. I objected to many of them using "Featured article" as a generic term. Raul654 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Changing from US to ISO 8601 format

All "Today's featured article" templates are currently saved using US format dates (June 6, 2006). I suggest we abandon this for the international standard (2006-06-06) - an unambiguous and clear presentation of the date. Obviously, a list ISO 8601 dates can be numerically sorted into a chronological list and it avoids conflict between those who are used to European formatting and those used to US. Since all existing pages are consistantly named they will easily be moved by a bot. Further, magic words can just as easily be used on the main page as they are for US format dates. --Oldak Quill 20:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me like a lot of work for, IMO, few benefits. Raul654 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If anything, 6 June 2006 might be worth it, but the template names are all hidden, so this does seem trivial. -- Zanimum 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Problem

This isn't very important, but the article usually changes to the next days featured article about half-way through the day. Microsoft was up for about a few hours, and then it changed to velocial raptors..is this because im from U.S. Central time, so it's suppose to change early, or what? I'm confused. andrew 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The site works on UTC, meaning that US Central time is something like 5-6 hours (I'm on the East Coast and it's 4 hours). Thus, new articles are up at around 7 PM for you, likely. Staxringold talkcontribs 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. --andrew 15:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft was changed to velocial raptors! Wow! How appropriate,... ;-) Dr. Cash 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of making Windows 2000 a main page article?

Just wondering. Full disclosure: I was the one who largely got it to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be posted here? --Ajm81 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of protection

Why is it that none of the daily featured articles are ever sprotected for the duration of being linked to the main page? They are always a target from IP vandalism on a minute-by-minute basis when they are featured on the Main Page, yet Semi-protection policy specifically mentions that the daily featured article should never be sprotected, yet the featured picture of the day is protected. Ryūlóng 01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul, why not tidy-up that page a bit, move it to Wikipedia space, and place a sentence at the top of this talk ("If you are considering suggesting...read this")? Marskell 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial list

Quote: Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page. (For example, Wikipedia would not appear, because it is considered shameless self-promotion).

Where could we find this list? --Xyz or die 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Short of a brain-scanning device, nowhere - it's entirely in my head. Raul654 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of protection (part deux)

With a recent Willy-on-Wheels-type vandalism that struck today's featured article, the article was move-protected to prevent similar attacks. Since articles cannot be sprotected as that would take away from the everyone-can-edit openness of Wikipedia, why not move-protect the day's featured articles. Certainly the best articles that Wikipedia has produced should not be moved dramatically when they are shown to everyone who visits the website. Ryūlóng 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that Brian0918 has been move-protecting daily FAs for a while now. I don't really have any objection to that. Raul654 06:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Protection (Volume III)

Since it occured with Bulbasaur, perhaps the various templates that are utilized in the day's featured article should be sprotected as well. There were multiple times that unscrupulous editors altered the templates transcluded in Bulbasaur, and at one point may have had the photograph of a man masturbating transcluded onto the main page until the template it was used in was sprotected. I doubt that this vandalism was solely due to the content being a Pokémon, but the vandalism to the templates could avoid vandalism that occured yesterday. Ryūlóng 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of work to do. I'll make sure to substitute out any templates from the main page blurb, but beyond that, protecting all transcluded templates seems like a lot of work for little gain. Raul654 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps just templates that are transcluded on the main page through the featured article thing, as with Bulbasaur, {{pokenum}} was vandalized, and that may have led to several instances where an image on the commons of a man masturbating was seen on the main page. Ryūlóng 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, which is why I said 'I'll make sure to substitute out any templates from the main page blurb' Raul654 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's FA Archive

Is there any point in updating the blubs that are in the archive? Specifcally, should DAB fixes be applied to them for those who are involved with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links? Thanks in advance for your response. --Brian G 02:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't really see a point. Raul654 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in Wikipedia namespace (TFA)

Criterion #9 in our image fair use policy expressly forbids the use of fair-use images outside of article space. I understand that an exception is habitually made for articles being currently featured on the main page. But what about the fair-use images in Wikipedia-namespace pages like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2006, i.e. archived examples of previously main-page-featured blurbs? For example, in the page just linked, we have Image:Schabir_Shaik.jpg, Image:Kargil Bofors.jpg, etc. So does the exception extend to the use of these images? What about the ones posted in proposed blurbs on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Requests? Andrew Levine 22:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note. Today's featured article, Watchmen, contains a fair use image, on the Main Page. I don't see the necessity of including fair use images on the Main Page, notably when our policy expressly forbids it. I'd like to see some clarification, before we run the risk of encountering legal troubles as a result of it. Bastique▼parler voir 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Extra div tag

Why is there an extra /div tag being placed after the main content of the template. There's no corresponding beginning div tag and it's affecting the way my user page looks. It's not necessary. Harryboyles 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken image in archived copies

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2005 has a broken image link. Needs admin to fix. --Quiddity 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

another at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2004 (this one isn't protected, but I don't know the procedure for choosing FA accompanying-images).

another at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2004

Is this the best place for me to list them? (I'm finding them through Wikipedia:Featured content, which is replacing Wikipedia:Featured articles as part of the proposed Sidebar redesign.) Thanks :) -- Quiddity 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias in TFA

I have been watching (and enjoying) TFA's daily for quite a while, and I think they're a great way of introducing Wikipedia's best work to newbies. I have a feeling, though, that there is a tendency for systemic bias in the selection of these articles. No doubt this is a result of the strong systemic bias of the FA's themselves (which is a problem in itself: consider that 5 different articles on Final Fantasy are FA's, but DNA is not). However, I believe articles showcased on the main page should represent more universally important topics than, for example, today's article. Seeing The Legend of Zelda placed right next to Nepal creates the impression that we think these articles are equally important. Perhaps there should be an additional criterion for accepting a FA into TFA, something like "universal interest"? --Zvika 07:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a great great deal more systemic bias in only featuring what arbitrary people see as "important". Wikipedia is a bastion for all notable knowledge, meaning any piece of knowledge sufficiently developed to reach FA status should be ok for the Main Page (except those very few exceptions, like Wikipedia used to be, and maybe Fred Phelps). Staxringold talkcontribs 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a long-standing complaint and the answer, as always, is try to aid in getting what you feel is important to FA standard. What gets to standard is what get's placed here.
Re importance, I don't agree it's totally arbitrary. Any reasonable editor would place a country above a video game, I think—even people who are really into video games. The main page tries, AFAICS, to balance very important topics with more idocyncratic ones (thus it may not be coincidence that Nepal and Zelda are side-by-side). Marskell 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? We do think they are equally important, it's what makes Wikipedia great! :) Highway Daytrippers 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Marskell: I see your point about displaying the diversity of articles like Nepal and Zelda side by side. My worry, though, is that newcomers to Wikipedia will have a first impression as though Wikipedia is a joke or some sort of geek cult thing (no offense Zelda fans!). --Zvika 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We're not a geek cult thing? oh. :-( *disassembles his wikishrine; puts away candles, almanacs, dictionaries, and jimbo effigy* --Quiddity 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Related: We're also somewhat dominated by males. --Quiddity 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
To Zvika, the answer is suggested. If your worried, start working on core topics.
To Highway: in terms of, for instance, selecting articles for Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 or 0.5 there is no reasonable argument that would place our video games on the same footing as our countries. Things like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics and Wikipedia:Assessment scale assume that some topics are by nature of greater importance than others (of course, all of these projects vary in their activity level). The countries of the world must surely be in the four digits, or at most five, in any list of topics of what an encyclopedia must have. But this isn't to discourage work on other things. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Marskell 10:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I definitely try to concentrate my effort on articles that I see as important, just like everyone else. My point is that there is a systemic bias: The mere fact that everyone works on what they think is important is insufficient to guarantee equal coverage of equally "universally important" topics. Sure, you can't accurately define "universally important", but even in a very rough attempt such as the Core Topics you mentioned, we fail miserably. Hence my suggestion that some anti-bias measures be adopted for TFA's. --Zvika 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You're suggesting a systemic bias in the broad subject matter of Wiki, not on TFA itself. TFA reflects what happens at FAC, which reflects which articles get worked on in general. The only rule-based way to counter it would be through negative reinforcement, e.g., we aren't going to promote video games any more. This is unfair and will drive people away. Another less obvious means is to select certain topics with lesser frequency than others for TFA—this is already done. See under the Sports and games section at WP:FA that only one of five Final Fantasy articles have been on the main page, for example. Marskell 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't really see how you can tell from WP:FA which articles have been TFA's, but I will take your word for it. I guess that satisfies my concern, more or less; I still feel some topics appear much more often than neccesary, but that's a matter of degree rather than principle. --Zvika 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
They are supposed to appear in bold though they aren't for me at the moment. Hit the edit link and you'll see a template wrapped around the ones that have been on the main page. Marskell 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The bolding was removed, as it is only really helpful for TFA maintainers. If you add the following line to your userstylesheet, it will show up. (via) --Quiddity 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

Lost as today's featured article / sell out

Tztz, interesting to put Lost as today's featured article a day before upcoming season's beginning. Maybe in the future other media events get featured as well - a first step towards "Wikipedia is today sponsored by...". --Abdull 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that was one of the reasons it was chosen for today. This happens a lot: we feature articles about particular events on their anniversaries, articles about particular people on their dates of birth or death, etc. It's a very long step from picking 'today's featured article' because it has an immediate relevance to a particular day to 'selling out' to the media corporates. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I second Nick Boalch's comment. -- Buffyverse 00:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, ABC was all too happy to give cash to this poor graduate student in exchange for featuring Lost on the main page. Just wait until you see what's cooking for sweeps week :) Raul654 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, was it pure chance that V for Vendetta (film) was featured on 5 November? Laïka 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias in selection of main article

I'm mumbling abaout how the FA article is selected. It looks there is some geographical and linguistic bias in the selection of FA article. I let me explain... I'm here since October 2005, and I've NEVER seen an article related to Italy (I missed last summer, however). Articles are mostly about US or UK arguments, often about figures of mediocre cultural interest (speaking of cinema star, videogames, etc.) Are all administrator from US or UK? To make some calculus, US and UK have some 350 million inhabitants. Italy 50. Of course, being this an encyclopedia written in English, I can expect some unbalance (say, a relative majority of articles regarding these countries or cultures)... but 1000 against zero looks too much. And I'm not saying this 'cause I'm Italian; I think it's the same with Sweden or Zaire or so... In Wikipedia:Systemic bias is stated that this is an international encyclopedia, so please take some move to correct the stuff. Good work. --Attilios 17:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page featured article is selected from those listed as featured articles (which have all been approved by the featured article candidates page as meeting the featured article criteria). If you think a subject area or topic should appear on the Main Page as a featured article then you (and your friends!) need to edit so that it meets the requirements. Yes, there is a systemic bias, because editors only work on the subjects that that find interesting.
Regarding Italy, Sicilian Baroque appeared on the Main Page on 24 December 2005, and War of the League of Cambrai on 14 January 2006, and Palazzo Pitti on 15 March 2006 (two largely written by Giano as it happens). Other potential candidates include Battle of Bicocca and Battle of Cannae (although the latter needs some assistance). I'm sure Venice or one of the Victor Emmanuels or The Divine Comedy or whatever would make excellent featured articles. Be bold and sofixit! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Tenebrae (film), which appeared on May 27. We've also had swedish articles too: Swedish allotment system appeared in April 2006 (and I seem to remember a Swedish king biography too) Raul654 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but are sady deficient on articles about Zaire (if it still exists - we do have Congo Free State but it is very old and not that good). We have a few decent articles on Swedish topics - IFK Göteborg and Swedish language too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The very question itself is flawed though. In a year, we featured 365 articles. There are over 210 countries in the world - so yes, it's a virtual certainty that there are countries for which we have not featured an article in the last year. That doesn't mean it's biased. I also find that allegation that we've under-featured Italy rather amusing, given the ethnic background of the person selecting them. Raul654 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The FA of the day is often (not invariably but often) something to do with computer gaming, ie toys for little boys. It is reasonable to assume that a high proportion of people who contribute to Wikipedia list "playing nerdy computer games" high on their list of interests when drafting their cv, assuming that is that they are old enough to have a cv. Presumably the computer games industry - which i guess is mostly Japanese rather than US or UK based - simply loves Wikipedia. Dr Spam (MD) (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Iwo Jima image?

According to the licensing for Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg:

Permission Note -- written permission was received from AP on 31 March 2005 which states:

Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press

Please tag all thumbnails with "Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press " to ensure compliance.

Shouldn't the use of the thumbnail be so tagged? WLD 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt

I've made a couple of minor changes to the first paragraph of the Roosevelt article. Can the same changes be made to the template destined for the main page?

I'd like to note in passing that the variety of articles being featured is a lot better than it was a while ago when I moaned about a US/UK bias. Good work!

Ben Arnold 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


High American Political Content

With the US midterm elections and Donald Rumsfield's resignation in the news today, was there really a need to feature the Supreme Court of the United States as well? Perhaps some care can be taken in the future to choose an appropriate featured article to give the front page some balance. It wouldn't hurt to delay the featuring of an article by a few days, would it? Rawr 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it is nice to have a front page that seems to all be related. I do not think it is somethign tha we should do all the time but I don't see the harm, if there were several oil, or enviornmental stories in the news, I think picking "did you know" and featured articlesthat went with the theme would be nice as well. Dalf | Talk 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image for J. R. R. Tolkien

I have changed the image for today's FA from Image:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg to Image:Tolkien 1916.jpg (cropped, of course). The latter is in the public domain. Fair use should be used as sparingly as possible, and the PD image sufficiently illustrates the subject, I believe. --Slowking Man 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Offensiveness vs "NOTCENSORED"

This is an issue I thought of while trying to get an article to FA. I understand WP:NOT#CENSORED and all, but I was just wondering whether this extends to the choice of featured article? I can understand not using swearwords/profanity on the main page, but would an article such as, for example Arctic Monkeys, where both direct quotes and their album titles (Who the Fuck Are Arctic Monkeys for example) feature language which people object to, appear on the front page, and if not, where is the line drawn? Laïka 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2007

I was about to suggest that we need to set up a 2007 archive, when I saw that USer:SmthManly did it a couple of weeks ago. Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Any way to formally challenge a phoney FA?

Today's featured article, on the imaginary "Wrath of God" campaign is patently rediculous -- even the name "Wrath of God" comes from a single, widely discredited source, a New York publicity hound. And "Black September" -- it's just a cover for Yasser Arafat's Fatah group. (If it wasn't, who was it's leader?)

How in the bloody heck does this happen? How did something like this scandal pass a peer review. Is everyone at Wikipedia under Steven Spielberg's thrall?

civilization

In the featured article civilization is spelled wrong, this must be corrected.

Please see the (short) discussion on the article's talk page Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions#Images; civilisation is a correct spelling, particularly in BrE and other English variants. While the refusal to allow the use of -ization on the part of the article's creator may be debated (in fact, I think I'm about to start that very debate), User:Samsara's comment in that talk page is relevant. Carre 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Salsa Music as TFA

The article for salsa music as the TFA (Today's Featured Article) has invalid highlighted words, citations, and the how the beats go are out of place. Ace Fighter 14:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Automatic Semiprotect

There should be a policy of automatic semiprotection for featured articles. I mean, you don't want to click on History of the board game Monopoly and get pictures of penises. Gaterion 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length and most agree that the helpful contributions of casual readers who click on the featured article outweighs the trouble of having to police it more strongly than usual. -Elmer Clark 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the statistics should be reviewed. There have been perhaps four valid, constructive edits since 00:00 UTC, and I don't know how many vandal edits. And anecdotally I think the problem is only getting worse. --JohnDBuell 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, with this example - lets review. Over a twenty-five hour span of time, from 00:00 UTC on 13 December to 01:00 UTC on 14 December the page was edited no less than 318 times. Breaking that down, there were five administrative actions as some form of protection was attempted. I don't know WHAT, as no semi-protect or protected message appeared on the article. That leaves us with 313. Of that, based on edit summaries, approximately 85 reversions took place against vandals, which struck at least as often. But one has to be careful with this, as some of the anon IP vandals deliberately put "revert", "rv" or something else in their edit summaries to make it look like they made a contribution. There were six "page replacements", three page blankings and two redirections. So, take those 96 (85 reversions, and 11 documented vandals) edits out, and we're left with 217. Without checking every single edit (which I'm not going to do at this time), I'm going to take a guess that half of that were vandals - or just over 100 vandal edits total, with 85 reversions. That leaves maybe, MAYBE one-third of edits in a 25 hour period as being legitimate, and most of those were minor changes in wording, removal of wikilinks, placement of wikilinks, addition of a category, and other trivia. There is NOT a huge difference in the article before it appeared on the main page and now. So I fail to see what purpose that NOT placing a "Today's Featured Article" under semi-protection (not allowing anon edits, and not allowing recently registered users) achieves. --JohnDBuell 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this difference isn't too significant, but I think it would be hard to argue that the article isn't stronger. Since featured articles are so heavily policed anyway, the damage done by vandalism is fairly minor. -Elmer Clark 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that it helped either - not ONE reference was added or removed. The only semi-significant changes were that in wording and phrasing. --JohnDBuell 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, so you know exactly what you are categorizing as "minor": according to a recent study, the Main Page featured article spends about two hours in a vandalized state during the time that it is linked to as the day's featured article.--DaveOinSF 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If you go to Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection and examine the early history, you will clearly see that this well-meaning but misguided decision became policy without significant discussion.--DaveOinSF 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Will we ever run out of Wikipedia Featured Articles to feature on the main page?

Theoretically, to keep up with the demands of FAOTD, there has to be more than 1 article per day on average that gets the Featured status every day. If, for example, we now have 1000 FA, we have featured 500 of them on the main page, and the rate of new FAs is 0.5 articles per day (1 FA status in 2 days), that means we will run out of FAs for FAOTD in 1000 days. --Orang gila 20:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

With luck, editors will see that as a call to action to edit more articles to the FA quality level. --JohnDBuell 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope so. The first FAOTD was Mozart on February 22, 2004. Between then and now (December 14, 2006) there have been 1025 days, and we have 1197 FAs. That means we still have 1197 - 1025 = 172 FAs that have not been featured on the main page. --Orang gila 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well we also have to take into account how many FAOTD have been demoted from FAs, and how many FAs have been demoted from that status WITHOUT being featured on the main page. Plus there are some that any number of us would argue just don't belong on the main page. I would never nominate The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) to be on the main page, because The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy already was. --JohnDBuell 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More explanation needed

"In order for the article to appear on the main page it must have a lead section and image suitable for use on the main page."

Could you expand on this a bit? Buc 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this template be protected?

We've protected the front page; wouldn't it be easy for someone to vandalize the front page by editing this template? --Ryan Delaney talk 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The mainpage doesn't feed from this page here, it feeds from a separate page that is protected long before the date of featuring becomes available, thus, any edits to this page will be fruitless in messing with the mainpage. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

non fair use images only?

can a featured article be TFA if it only has fair use images? Nespresso 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been such instances before, and a FU image was displayed on the front page.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article pages

Shouldn't the today's featured article pages such as this:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2007 be protected. Surely anyone can enter any artical they want and make it look like it's going to be on the main page.Buc 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Raul is the FA coordinator, so when an admin is protecting the template, he/she can make sure if it is the appropriately chosen article. Nishkid64 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So what can they do if it's not?Buc 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian Standard Time

For today's FA (1/23), it fails to mention yesterday's FA (Indian Standard Time). Small error, you guys might want to fix it. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Time between FA and MP

is their a certain amount of time an article should be a FA before apperaring on the Main Page? The Placebo Effect 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can't appear on the Main Page the same month it was promoted or the month after. I say this because my first FA, Damon Hill, reached FA status in June last year and appeared on the Main Page in August the same year. But I don't know for sure whether or not that was the case for all the articles. --Phill talk Edits 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, there's no rule behind that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images for TFA

Today's featured article (Ian Thorpe) has no image: the image that was originally in the article was one from Flickr which turned out to be a copyvio. I've noticed that we tend to be a bit slow, and only notice problematic images when they are on the main page. Ideally, the FAC process should pick up on these concerns; but FAC is not FPC and reviewers may well overlook this. In any case, the image selected may not have been in the article at the time of FAC so we should check it before it is on the main page in any case.

I've created a table in my userspace to analyse the past months TFA images. Out of the 26 images, fully a third of them I am not 100% sure are ok. Whilst I am being overly cautious, I think this indicates a serious problem. We should be giving the images a decent examination before they appear on the Main page...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow's article (5th April)

Could we have some minor additions to the intro? One would be "The most common dishes were potages and stews" and the other would be a qualification for the sweet-sour flavor. I think it's important to point out that it was a late medieval thang rather than something that permeated the entire period.

Peter Isotalo 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles without a suitable pic

(From Talk:Main page) Often, when an article about a subject such as Scooby Doo is featured, there's no free images which can illustrate the topic, and fair use images aren't allowed. Nevertheless, the page feels unbalanced without an image in the top left since every other section has one. Therefore, what about using Image:Featured article star.svg? It's not perfect by any means, but at least it keeps the main page feeling balanced. I've created a test here, demonstrating how it could work. Laïka 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template frame broken? and what happened to "more..."?

(also mentioned at Talk:Main page) On my monitor, both on this page and on the main page, the text of the TFA blurb currently doesn't wrap at all, but runs right out of the frame and on through several horizontal screens. On the main page it ploughs right through the "In the news" template and renders both illegible.

I am running oldish software, but this is only happening with TFA, and only in the last few days. I can't pinpoint what day it started, because oddly the problem doesn't happen on the Archive page.

Anybody understand what's happening here?

Also what happened to the (more...) link at the end of the blurb? It's disappeared all of a sudden.

Thanks, —Turangalila talk 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tidying up archives from 2005

I've just finished going through the TFA archives from 2005, and I've been replacing dead image links or removing them (or requesting this when the subpage was protected). Some I had to leave, as there are no free image currently available, but the following have been updated (or should be soon) with new images:

The (*) ones are where the subpage was still protected and I requested the edit. If anyone here has time, could they check they agree with the use of the new images and whether they are suitably free images. The reason for doing this image updating? It improves the look of the archives, and also improves the reuse of the subpages at places like Wikipedia:Featured content. Would doing the same for the subpages for 2004, 2006 and 2007 be helpful? Carcharoth 01:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rest of archives checked (2004, 2006 and 2007)

Following on from the above section, I've looked through the rest of the archives and removed/replaced several more deleted images, in many cases using new free images that have been uploaded in the year or so since the article first appeared on the main page. For the record, the pages where image changes were involved, and that have new images (or have requests for new images to be placed on protected pages) are:

Use of a (*) indicates the page was protected. Again, if anyone here has time, could they check they agree with the use of the new images and whether they are suitably free images. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. The pages have been unprotected now, but I don't have time to do the suggested edits or remove the "editprotected" thingies. Pfft. That will have to wait until I get back, unless someone else gets there first. Carcharoth 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
All done now, I think. Thanks for the page unprotection. Carcharoth 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Replacing deleted images in the archives

When old images are deleted (for whatever reason), they probably need replacing. From the check I made of the archives, there were problems with around 60 pages out of about 1235, which is an attrition rate of about 5%. Other image issues may have been caught at the time of deletion, and some of these issues may have been due to many of the subpages having been left protected (hence my large number of 'editprotected' requests recently), which could have discouraged others from repairing the pages. It is probably worth checking back through the archives now and again (it took me a couple of hours) and seeing whether images have vanished, or whether better and free images are available since the time of writing the subpage. Updating the text though, would be a bad idea, as it is still meant to be an archive of what appeared on the Main Page, despite the subpages being reused elsewhere as well. But image updating is fairly easy. There were, however, a rather large number of "fair use" and "book covers" and similar non-free images in the archives. A bot will probably come along at some point and point that out, but it might be an idea to decide now how to tackle that - I believe the latest is that non-free images shouldn't be used on the Main Page summaries, and that would apply to the archives as well. eg. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 1, 2006 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 3, 2006. Is that correct? Carcharoth 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Centrx

I noticed this edit, and I was wondering if you were aware of the other, similar edits, I had made to the WP:TFA archives? They are listed at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Tidying up archives from 2005 and the section below that. I initially started this when I was refreshing Wikipedia:Featured content (which reuses the old TFA subpages), and noticed that some images were red-links. I then went through the whole archives, removing red-links where no free replacement could be found, and replacing with free images where possible. Sometimes the free images in question were uploaded after the TFA subpage had originally been used on the Main Page (the archives go back to the start of 2004). The way are see it, there are two issues:

  • What to do when an image link turns red? Replace or remove. I argue for replace, based on the reuse of the pages and for the benefit of those browsing the archives. Remove leaves some of the entries without pics (if you want to know what the page looked like when on the main page, you can use the page history to link to that static version, or whip up a template to do that using an oldid parameter).
  • What to do when a free image later becomes available (as in the Ian Thorpe case)?

I won't be able to reply until Sunday, but maybe we can take this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article? Carcharoth 08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

End copied content

Images and the main page

In my near five month tenure as an administrator, I've seen a handful of instances where issues have arisen with the image in the featured article of the day template, always when an image is non-free content. With the current featured article, Final Fantasy VI, the image was originally the game's box art. Pharos replaced it with a photograph of an SNES. Last week, Excel Saga was the featured article and the page had a scan of the manga's cover. It was replaced by a photograph of the writer who was dressed up as one of the characters. When Scooby-Doo was the featured article, things went back and forth with images that were deemed either "derivative works" or the placement of a photograph of a great dane was "misleading." This is clearly an issue when it comes to other featured articles of which there is no free alternative to visually depict the subject. The Main Page is in the article space (currently). The only issues would be a rationale for the use of the non-free image when its on the main page (meaning that the Today's featured article pages would need to include text relating to its usage) and the transclusion of the image where it's a user page template. These issues could be solved, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | Main Page | (image) | (suitable placeholder, or nothing) }}. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want to use a non-free image on the main page at all. Last time shit like this came up, I said that selecting an image to accompany each article (if/when it appears on the main page) is something that needs to be decided when nominating the article to be an FA, not 24 hours before crunch time. This needs to be re-iterated. —freak(talk) 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So if a suitable image is not found, then what? The article never shows up on the Main Page? The article is declined as featured?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, I really don't care what the outlook is for such articles. That's for the FAC people to decide. I'm just sick of arguing about it when it's too late. —freak(talk) 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a written policy one way or the other on this issue? The curent main page FA (Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)) has no image, which IMO is frankly silly when the subject is a visual artwork. -- Hongooi 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with FAC. Articles can and will become FAs with FU images; but these issues definitely have to be tackled before they are scheduled for the main page.--SidiLemine 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oceanic whitetip shark tomorrows FA

I added a few wikilinks in the page, can someone please update what will actually be on the main page with those wikilinks? I guess it is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2007 which can not be edited by me, guess you have to be an admin? --Stefan talk 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchable TFA page

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Title has been created as a bot-updated page with the name of today's featured article on it. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Title can be used to watch changes to TFA, and the page can be transcluded onto larger related changes watchlists for the same functionality. Λυδαcιτγ 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Today's doesn't have its image on the main page. It's a bit disturbing for an article about a painting. How come?--SidiLemine 09:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Main Page. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Images in TFA archives (redux)

Thread started as follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Non-free images in project space. Carcharoth 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This post is a follow-up to the issues discussed back in May 2007. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Tidying up archives from 2005, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Rest of archives checked (2004, 2006 and 2007), and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Replacing deleted images in the archives. I've been looking through the TFA archives (the typical pages is of the form Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2007), and compiling lists of (a) TFA blurbs using non-free images; (b) TFA blurbs with red-link images; (c) TFA blurbs without pictures. The last two are fairly simple, and will be listed below. The first one requires clicking on each picture, and will take longer. To give context to the numbers below, the number of TFA blurbs from February 2004 to August 2007 is approximately 3.5 years worth of blurbs: ie. about 1277 blurbs. Carcharoth 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TFA blurbs with redlinks

This is a list of 22 TFA blurbs that had redlinks on 19 August 2007, or had other problems that needed fixing. The reasons range from renaming of images at Commons, images being deleted at Commons, images being deleted on Wikipedia, and others. The fixes involve removing the redlink, fixing the link, finding a free picture, and others.

Notes added later. Carcharoth 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TFA blurbs without pictures

To be added later. Carcharoth 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Up to end of 2005, so far. Carcharoth 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of FAs on the main page

I may have missed some discussion on this, sorry if I did. But how difficult will it be to start mentioning the number of FAs on the main page again? As I understand it from the history of Template:TFAfooter, what happened was we were using Template:FA number but then we started using a bot but then cascading protection stopped the bot from working so we went back to nothing at all. At about the same time, there was then some concern about having to manually update the template and the FA count in WP:FA so eventually the template was changed so it uses WP:FA directly. User talk:Marskell/Archive 14#FFA bot counter. Am I right then that as it stands if we were to use Template:FA number to put the number on the main page, it will result in cascading protect of the template which will then also result in cascading protection WP:FA i.e. it's unlikely to be an acceptable option? Or alternatively we could go back to using a manually updated template but that will create more work as two numbers will have to be updated and is unlikely to be acceptably either? Is there any other way we could have an FA count on the main page? Nil Einne 11:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

I know that the philosophy on the use of fair use images has changed over time, and that Fair use images are no longer used on the Main page. But should they be removed from the archives of "Today's featured article"? I ran across Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2004, and am wondering if that image should be there. Corvus cornix 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix the tense

The lead on the mainpage claims that "thou" was a second person singular pronoun, which is slightly misleading, since the article lead uses the present tense. I don't think it's really accurate to portray words that are still familiar to many, if only as an archaism, as somehow "deceased".

Peter Isotalo 06:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2, 2007 Article

The article meant for the main page on October 2, 2007 has a bad wikilink in it. I can't change it so I hope someone else will. JRG 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orion (mythology)

The lead of the article has been tweaked from three or four main versions of Orion's death to several versions, after discussion on the talk page. Please change the main page blurb to follow, if there is time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it. In the future, please leave such comments on talk:main page, or on my talk page. Raul654 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Offensive material?

There's a quote at Wikipedia:Article development that I'm not sure how to interpret.

The article could also receive the distinction of being featured on the main page (provided, for example, it isn't about a subject that would offend a significant number of readers).

What would 'offend a significant number of our readers'? The Muhammad drawings? Feces? If it only offends a small minority does that make it okay? Isn't this all a bit POV? Is this quote reflective of our policy or should it be removed? I don't like the idea that something should be excluded from the main page because it might be considered offensive by some. If the clitoris, pornography or Piss Christ articles were up to FA standard, I don't see why they shouldn't be featured. I suppose it would be a bit weird to have something like fuck as TFA, and I can't imagine the vandalism it would attract, but what exactly do we define as 'offensive'? (See also #Offensiveness vs "NOTCENSORED" above). Richard001 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Determining whether or not something is too offensive to go on the main page is left to the FA director's (my) judgment. I have not attempted to define what is or is not too offensive to go there - it's highly subjective - but suffice it to say that out of the current thousand-plus featured articles, I can only think of one that I would be reluctant to put there (Jenna Jameson, porn star). In other words, it's a narrowly defined category. Raul654 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a silly idea.

Yes, I know today is GameFAQs' tenth anniversary, but there's going to be L-Block vandalism all day... Will (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the point?

There is a section for reporting apparent errors in the proposed TFA for each day, but frequently comments made here are apparently disregarded. Often, with no acknowledgement of these comments or reason stated for not incorporating the suggested changes, they are unremarked upon and left to be deleted when the article in question is removed. This seems to me to be virtually equivalent to placing an article for peer review, and then neither refuting nor incorporating constructive comments. If those who have the editing rights over the TFA are not going to treat the error reporting section seriously, then it would be more honest to remove the facility. Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen error reports are often acted on or at least responded to. I'm sure there are some cases when they fall through the cracks but I don't think it's that often. One of the biggest problems with TFA error reports is people don't seem to understand that (as the error report section clearly says), editors are always going to defer to the article. If the article says A and you say A should be changed to B, then you have to change the article to say B first. Once this has been accepted then you are welcome to make an error report to have A corrected to B. But admins don't generally have the time or the knowledge to try and work out whether A or B are correct, that is left up to the editors of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Although the Matt Groening image is fine, you could also use the walk of fame star image. --igordebraga ≠ 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Swedish emigration

The mainpage blurb for Swedish emigration to the United States uses a black and white photo of sugar beet harvesters that looks a bit dull even at a larger size. Wouldn't it better to use Image:Aquitaniaposter.PNG instead? Here's what it would look at 100px.

Peter Isotalo 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Poster depicting the purpose-built emigrant steamer RMS Aquitania

During the Swedish emigration to the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, about 1.3 million Swedes left Sweden for the United States of America. While the virgin land of the U.S. frontier was a magnet for the rural poor all over Europe, some factors encouraged Swedish emigration in particular. The religious repression practiced by the Swedish Lutheran State Church was widely resented, as was the social conservatism and class snobbery of the Swedish monarchy. Population growth and crop failures made conditions in the Swedish countryside increasingly bleak. By contrast, reports from early Swedish emigrants painted the American Midwest as an earthly paradise, and praised American religious and political freedom and undreamed-of opportunities to better one's condition. Swedish migration to the United States peaked in the decades after the American Civil War (1861–65). Most immigrants became classic pioneers, clearing and cultivating the prairie, while others remained in the cities, particularly Chicago. Many established Swedish Americans visited the old country in the later 19th century, their narratives illustrating the difference in customs and manners. (more...)

Recently featured: Chicxulub Crater – Ælle of Sussex – G. Ledyard Stebbins

Older FAs waiting for main page

I think Raul does a fine job of scheduling TFAs. I was just wondering if there was a method to determine which FAs have been waiting longer in each category. I wonder if this list is used (Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page) and if so, I wonder if there is a way to somehow list the date it was promoted for ease of older FA selections. Just curious. Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, promotion date is a non-consideration. There is some effort to make it a consideration insofar as requests so. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, no, I do not use that list. I do it the proper way - which is, I have a second account that I log in with, which uses monobook (that I can't stand otherwise). In its monobook.css, it had the code necessary to bold all the articles in wikipedia:featured articles that have appeared on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I've wondered about the "automatic bolding" of the TFA when it doesn't look bolded -- lol.  :) Anyway, thanks for your time, again, was just curious. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Calendar error

I was trying to double check a date later in the year using the calendar and found an error. March 2008 is off and thus all the subsequent months are too. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2008. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cycling old TFAs from 2003/4?

What's the practice for doing this? There's an article which would be good for February 17 (London congestion charge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) but it's been there once already. Will (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given how many are waiting for TFA, this is not a go, I think. People are already quite anxious to see their newer ones go up. Marskell (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

January 31

I have some concerns about the featured article for January 31. The title of the article is not in bold, there are a few typos and mostly I'm concerned about the major MOS breach. The subject is an American citizen but the blurb is written in British English. --JayHenry (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable. :0 Wrad (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)