| Articles suggested here must already be featured articles. Articles do not have to be suggested to appear on the Main Page. Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five total requests on this page at any time. If there are already five articles requested and if the article that you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it according to the instructions below. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling today's featured article; the final decision rests with the featured article director (Raul654). Please confine date requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the article will appear on the requested date. See also User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts. It is helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), up for discussion on the talk page pending template up to 60 days before the requested date; requestors should return to move the request to this page during the 30-day timeframe if the article has enough points to replace another article. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Dead links – Alt text | Featured content: Featured article tools: | | Calculating points: Points are the sum of choices for each of the following six criteria: - Age (since promotion to featured article)
- Promoted between one and two years ago: 1 point
- Promoted two or more years ago: 2 points
Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)[1] - Date relevant to article topic: 1 point
- Decennial or quinvigintennial anniversary (10-year or 25-year multiples): 2 points
- Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points
- Centennial anniversary (100-year multiples): 6 points
- Importance
| - Contributor history
- Diversity
- Subject underrepresented at WP:FA:[3] 1 point
- Main page representation
- A similar article has not been featured on the main page:[4]
- Within three months of requested date: 1 point
- Within six months of requested date: 2 points
- Deduct points if a similar article was recently featured on the main page:
- Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points
- Within one month of requested date: −2 points
| Notes - ^ One point is awarded if there is an obvious and significant connection between the article and the date, for example Earth on Earth Day. Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event. Note that just because an article might be appropriate for a date, for example Chinese language on Chinese New Years, that does not mean a point should be awarded.
- ^ Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old using Wikipedia for a school project.
- ^ The category where the article is listed at WP:FA has fewer than 50 featured articles. The categories which currently qualify are: Awards, decorations and vexillology; Business, economics and finance; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Education; Engineering and technology; Food and drink; Health and medicine; Language and linguistics; Law; Mathematics; Philosophy and psychology.
- ^ Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar. Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, Atom and Noble gas.
Adding requests: The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and to allow other articles their chance. Please nominate only one article at a time. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured articles is here. If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following: - If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
- If item 1 doesn't apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points articles outside that date may have.
- Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the article with the latest date. If the tied articles are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option.
Suggested formatting: The request should have a blurb that uses the same formatting as the ones used on the main page; see today's example. Specifically: format it as one paragraph only; omit reference tags, alternative names, and extraneous bolding; trim birth/death dates to year only; link to the article title in bold; and limit total length (including spaces and markup) to roughly 1200 characters or less. The blurb should be preceded by a lead image when available; fair use images are not allowed. Use the following markup style for the image: <div style="float:left;margin:0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">[[File:Jrobinson.jpg|100px|alt=Waist-up portrait of black baseball batter at end of swing|Jackie Robinson]]</div> |
Summary chart Currently accepting requests from November 28 to December 28 (only up to December 18 if the entry would have five or more points). The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page: † Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. Requests December 4 The history of the Montreal Canadiens professional ice hockey club dates back to its founding on December 4, 1909 as a charter member of the National Hockey Association. Created to appeal to Montreal's francophone population, they played their first game on January 5, 1910, and captured their first Stanley Cup in 1916. The Montreal Canadiens were one of the four founding teams of the National Hockey League (NHL) in 1917. The club struggled during the Great Depression, nearly relocating to Cleveland, Ohio in 1935 and contemplated suspending operations in 1939. Maurice Richard became the first player in NHL history to score 50 goals in a single season in 1944–45 and sparked the Richard Riot in 1955 when he was suspended for attacking a linesman. The Canadiens won a record five consecutive titles from 1956 to 1960, and nine more between 1964 and 1978 under general manager Sam Pollock. Led by goaltender Patrick Roy, they won their 24th Stanley Cup in 1993, the last Canadian team to do so. The Hockey Hall of Fame has inducted over 50 former Canadiens players, as well as 10 executives. The team has retired 14 numbers and has honoured 10 off-ice personnel in its Builder's Row. ( more….) Six points as a centennial anniversary, minus two if Scotland national football team also runs. I am slightly bending the rules by not removing the lowest ranked nomination, but as I noted on the talk page, William III will automatically drop off the list in about a day, and this nomination is intended to replace that one once Raul schedules tomorrow's TFA. I just wont be around for the next several days, so I decided to make a pre-emptive strike. Hope y'all don't mind. Resolute 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - Support Let me be the first to jump on this bandwagon. This is a timely selection. I must say as an American Hockey fan, I would like to see an explanation for the "Habs" in the WP:LEAD, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - see Scotland national football team above. National institution vs. national soul. Smallbones (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. We should be recognizing centennials. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per above. Wizardman 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment points look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - Support The same as Karanacs.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nice centennial issue. . dave souza, talk 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
December 6 George Hatfeild Dingley Gossip (1841–1907) was a minor American-English chess master and writer. He competed against most of the world's leading players in British and international chess tournaments between 1870 and 1895, but with only modest success. The writer G. H. Diggle calls him "the King of Wooden Spoonists" because he usually finished last in strong tournaments. Gossip was also a noted writer. His 1874 treatise The Chess-Player's Manual—A Complete Guide to Chess was harshly received by the critics, largely because he had included a number of informal skittles games that he had (atypically) won against stronger players. He developed a lifelong enmity toward chess critics, attacking them ferociously in his books. However, his 1879 book Theory of the Chess Openings was well received, becoming one of the standard opening works of the time. He made his living primarily as a journalist, author, and translator, writing for publications in England, France, Australia, and the United States. At various times he lived in each of those countries, Germany, and Canada. In 1898 and 1899, two publishers issued his only non-chess book, The Jew of Chamant. Published under the pseudonym "Ivan Trepoff", it was virulently anti-Semitic. Chess writers have often mocked Gossip's play. However, a modern assessment system, Chessmetrics, concludes that at his peak he was close to grandmaster strength. (more...) - Three points: one as the anniversary of Gossip’s birth, and two because no similar article (an article related to chess or any other board game) has been Today’s featured article in over six months. Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Points look good. I read the article when it showed on the template last night. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support SyG (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support An interesting look at one of the colorful characters in chess history. Also a sobering reminder of how close to the intellectual mainstream anti-semitic views were prior to WWII. I am glad to see a nomination for an article on a game that doesn't require a console or a joystick. There are a number of fine chess related articles on WP. Hopefully more of them will make it to FA. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, as stated by Rusty. It also is well-written, and impeccably researched and sourced. Kablammo (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Kablammo. Great article, interesting topic. GlassCobra 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Not a particularly distinguished chess player but a very interesting character, and a well writtern and researched article Fletch79 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment just a suggestion, for here and the article. Maybe the word "informal" before "skittles" would be helpful so the reader doesn't have to click. I think that whereever possible a lede should be self explanatory.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. This is not a topic we see frequently at TFA and will be a great addition to the main page. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, have never heard anyone complain about too much chess on the Main Page so this should be OK topic. Interesting as well. --candle•wicke 20:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment There are only four chess-related Featured Articles. The others are Chess, The Turk, and First-move advantage in chess, all of which have already been on the Main Page (2004-05-10, 2007-04-06, 2009-03-21) - so I don't think there's much chance of people making that complaint. Krakatoa (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
December 12 2 pts for 10-year anniversary of release. I know this doesn't give it any points, but 12/12/09 is my birthday so I'd consider a support vote to be a nice present! :) I know Grim Fandango ran on November 12, and I'm hoping that doesn't count against the "within one month" - it seems to me that this is just outside of the one-month line. Plus, this is a 10-year anniversary, so not exactly arbitrary. :) BOZ (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - Support An anniversary of ten years is pretty significant and the game is well regarded still, even after all this time. This article nudged me to check out the game, so I'm looking favorably to this appearing on the front page. Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Two points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's what I was hoping for. :) BOZ (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be three points? I'm second on the contributor list tool (linked to somewhere above), and I haven't had an article on the main page before. (also, support if that's allowed from the article's major editor[s]). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- No article that you've been a major contributor to has appeared main page, regardless of whether you've asked for it to be?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Correct; the only one was a DYK, but it says that the point only counts past TFAs. Really, this is the only feature article that I can say I am a "major" contributor to at all (the other being Ravenloft (module), but it was completely rewritten before it got promoted, and it hasn't been on the main page either). Other FA contributions have been minor tweaks and the like, and I certainly don't feel like a major contributor to any others. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we've allowed similar cases lots of times. Up to three points, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Just in case, it should be pointed out that Grim Fandango was originally picked by Raul for Nov 11 sometime the week before, but moved on the 10th to Nov 12th (as I think it was caught that the 11th was Veteran's Day and a more appropriate article was there. As BOZ states, I believe this is still outside the 1 month boundary for that, so no point subtractions for that issue.) --MASEM (t) 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support for an article on the game that broke many stereotypical molds.—RJH (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support for ten-year anniversary. --candle•wicke 20:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Happy birthday. :P GlassCobra 20:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support This game had the best writing in a video game I've ever played, I remember when it came out 10 years ago. Cult classic. JACOPLANE • 2009-11-18 21:17
- Oppose with all due respect for the article and the editors, I just think we have far too many video games on TFA. Smallbones (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree with this, only considering how other VG articles have reached TFA. I have had several featured video game articles that I was a/the major contributor on selected by Raul to be on the front page within the last two years, 5 within the last 6 months, including 2 within a 30 day period. (This is Raul's pick, no TFA here). I'm pretty sure Raul is aware that VG is an over-represented topic at TFA but these still are selected. That may say something to the pool of available FAs that there remain to pull from. As best as I can recall, this is the first major TFA request for a VG front page in a long time, since we (the VG project) are well aware of that stigma, and thus do tend to coordinate internally to avoid making this excessive. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
December 17 Homer Simpson, voiced by Dan Castellaneta ( pictured), is a fictional main character in the animated television series The Simpsons. Homer is the boorish father of the Simpson family. With his wife, Marge, he has three children: Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. As the family's provider, he works at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Homer embodies several American working class stereotypes: he is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy and ignorant; however, he is also fiercely devoted to his family. Homer was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening and first appeared on television, along with the rest of his family, in The Tracey Ullman Show short " Good Night" on April 19, 1987. After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family got their own series on Fox, which debuted December 17, 1989. Homer is one of the most influential fictional characters on television. He was ranked the second greatest cartoon character by TV Guide and was voted the greatest television character of all-time by Channel 4 viewers. Castellaneta has won four Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance and a special achievement Annie Award for voicing Homer. In 2000, Homer, along with the rest of his family, was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. ( more...) The article was promoted over a year ago, that's one point. It commemorates a 20th anniversary, 2 points. So, at least three. Depending on your definition of similar article, it might gain another point. By December 17, it will have been over 3 months since a similar article (I'm going by fictional character articles, so the most recent would be Khan Noonien Singh, which ran on September 4; a television-related article, North by North Quahog, went on September 21). December 17 marks the 20th anniversary of the show's first episode, and Simpsons debut of the character. Another possibility for a TFA on that day is Bart Simpson. The Simpsons is a FA, but it previously ran on December 17, 2007 (so yes, this would be the second case of a Simpsons article running on that day, but does it really matter?). Now, if this day is rejected, another possibility is January 14, the airdate of "Bart the Genius" (which Fox considers the first "official" episode), in which case I would probably request Bart's page. Yes, there have been four previous TFAs for The Simpsons - Homer's Phobiaon July 27, 2007; The Simpsons on December 17, 2007; Troy McClure on May 28, 2008; and Treehouse of Horror (series) on October 31, 2008. So, it's been over a year since a request was made. -- Scorpion0422 19:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - Comment I find the image irritating. If it was The Simpsons it would work but when I see Homer Simpson and the face of this guy pops up - there's a disconnect there, even if he voices him. Hekerui (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be much more "irritating" a) if there was no image and b) if it was on a The Simpsons TFA, as he wouldn't be the most relevant picture. An image of Castellaneta is perfectly relevant, an image of Homer is not allowed as it is fair-use. Gran2 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's very unlike there is a free use image of Homer Simpson anywhere. BUC (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know the fair-use rules, I just think Homer is such a well known figure that people will go "huh?" like me upon seeing this. Despite the man being important to Homer as such. Just my view. Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Three points, North by North Quahog is in my opinion similar. While the anniversary is of the show, of course it is also the 20th anniversary of Homer Simpson's first appearance on the show (doh!). Can we get a photograph of some Simpsons merch that might be free use? Or the Hollywood star or the Homer as crop circle?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding of the fair use policies is that any image of a copyrighted character, either on a t-shirt or whatever, cannot be counted as free-use. This is in the article and is in the Commons as free-use: File:Homer Simpson in Cerne Abbans.JPG but not only is it a fairly small image I think it should actually be classified as fair use. The star has been used before and doesn't seem an improvement on the image of Castellaneta. TV TFAs have run in the past with a production guy as the image, I really don't see anything wrong with this. Gran2 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was discussed when we had the water park this spring. Copyrighted characters in costume.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd go with the star. Readers will see it and think, "Yes, the Simpsons are stars." whereas if the Castellaneta picture is used, 99.9% of readers will say, "What the hell?! That's not Homer Simpson!" Krakatoa (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- commons:File:The Simpsons star.jpg and commons:File:Simpsonstar.jpg are the two usable pictures of the star. I agree, though, that having a picture of someone else is decidedly confusing - if it was an out-of-character photo of a "visual actor", or if the article wasn't about a specific character, sure - but there's no immediate visual link between the image and the named subject. Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. If you use the star you may as well just write "Homer Simpson" on a white background and use that as an image. Seriously, how many people are actually going to look at the main page and go "Oh my God! There's a picture of some guy, but the words say Homer Simpson! This makes no sense, I'm just going to leave an never use this confusing site ever again!" - "North by North Quahog" ran with a picture of Seth McFarlane, using an image of Dan (with the blurb clearing featuring the word "pictured" next to his name) is more relevant than that was. Gran2 15:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- "North by North Quahog" is an episode, Homer Simpson is a well-known character that most people with a tv can identify while the article has the unknown face of this guy as the picture, when only his voice is identifiable. Hekerui (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Gran. The fact is, the image of his voice actor, who is just as important to the character as his creator, Matt Groening, or his design. People are not going to be confused because they see an image of a guy in an article about a cartoon, especially when the text says specifically who this guy is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using his voice actor, you are overthinking this — its his actor, that's all there is to say; it works. The Flash {talk} 19:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- The reader has to go down to the sixth sentence of the blurb (which appears as the seventh-eighth line on my monitor) to find out who the pictured guy is. The picture will work much better if you move the "voiced by Dan Castellaneta (pictured)" clause to the end of the first sentence. Krakatoa (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- That would solve it, I think. Hekerui (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Theleftorium 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- The moved comment is a marked improvement, I think - thanks. Shimgray | talk | 12:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support
Although the accompanying image of Dan Castellaneta is a bit off-putting, the 20th anniversary of The Simpsons is a cultural milestone that deserves commemoration. Krakatoa (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - I'm not sure if this really counts as the 20th anniversary of The Simpsons, since they had technically been on TV before 1989. BUC (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- They may have been, but The Simpsons TV show had not. Gran2 10:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Krakatoa. The 20th anniversary of the show is being reported everywhere. Theleftorium 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per above.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Per above. The Flash {talk} 19:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per above. --candle•wicke 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but that image is really off putting. Perhaps it is because, for example, if I were to think of "The Simpsons", I might think of their house from the title sequence or Bart riding his skateboard or that family picture that we used to have. When I think of "Homer Simpson", I think of Homer Simpson, not Dan Castellaneta. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Timely and appropriate. GlassCobra 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support using either this picture or no picture. I don't think the image of the Hollywood star is appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support as everyone loves Homer, and the image of the guy doing the voice rather than the familiar cartoon makes the article more interesting. . . dave souza, talk 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
December 27 - This is a three-pointer: one for age and two for decennial anniversary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- This article was nominated for its other anniversary in November, but two Illinois articles were put on the main page including Interstate 355, which was considered to be similar enough to reduce this article's point value.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Three points If at first you don't succeed, Chi, Chi again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support as previously. Great articles on great architecture are always appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
|
