Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:55, 2 February 2014

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
- The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
- The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.	Create the nomination subpage. In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.
II.	Write the nomination. On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded `{{TFAR nom}}` template as you can, then save the page. Your nomination should mention: when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out); when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks); and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.	Write the blurb. Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.	Post at TFAR. After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article): `===February 29===` `{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}` Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date. It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary. If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from November 2 to December 2.

Date	Article	Points	Notes	Supports^†	Opposes^†
Nonspecific 1	Fuck (film)	0	Film about freedom of speech and censorship	21	3
Nonspecific 2
Nonspecific 3
Nonspecific 4
March 12	Mitt Romney	4	Birthday; FA since 2012; widely covered	2	0

^† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

Fuck (film)

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck". It argues that "fuck" is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. Fuck features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary explain the history and evolution of the word. Anderson was exposed to conceptions surrounding "fuck" by comedian George Carlin's monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television". Bill Plympton animated sequences illustrating concepts in the film. Fuck was first shown at the AFI Film Festival on November 7, 2005, at ArcLight Hollywood. A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression. Reviewers criticized its repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, Fuck is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend."

(Full article...)

Note: I edited the blurb down to 1,195 characters including spaces. No points if after 8 March 2014, minus one point before that. Film about freedom of speech and censorship. — Cirt (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Educational documentary about censorship and freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice article on a fascinating subject. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes left at T:MP, WP:AN, WP:FAC, and WP:VPM. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not. Looks interesting. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 13:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice article and a good topic for the main page coverage. Though I do sense a great deal of irony will abound at Talk:Main page when (if) this runs due to some people's hangups about the use of the word. Reso lute 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support freedom of speech, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck yeah. -- John Reaves 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the WMF gives an explicit say-so. Free speech is a valuable right, but having the right to do something isn't an obligation to do it. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum, and for better or worse running this at TFA will trigger automated filters and get Wikipedia blacklisted on a lot of corporate networks, get Wikipedia blocked from schools worldwide, and get the site banned as a whole in large swathes of Africa and Asia. Since schools and the developing world are precisely where the WMF is keenest to push Wikipedia, this will have a disproportionate effect. If this were a major article that nonetheless upset some people (Rape, Sexually transmitted disease, Obscenity…) the WMF would be able to make a reasonable defence that the educational mission justified the potential problems caused, and that any resultant bans were inappropriate censorship—as when German Wikipedia ran Vagina as TFA—but in this case, regardless of good intentions, to most outside observers this is going to look like teenage posturing and Wikipedia going out of its way to cause offence, and Jimmy Wales is going to have to spend the next few months trying to persuade assorted sceptical governments that Wikipedia doesn't represent a threat to public decency, and to persuade the corporate donors on which Wikipedia ultimately depends that their money wouldn't be better off going to CARE or the International Literacy Foundation. – iridescent 2 15:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems certain that Frank's Cock appearing as featured article would have been far, far more offensive to those parts of Africa (not sure about Asia) that have old-fashioned views on such things, and Jimbo (who talks to African governments quite a lot I think) didn't mention getting any negative feedback at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed by John Reaves and add that it's about fucking time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be interesting and important, but do we really want this to be the first thing a parent sees when opening up the 'pedia to help their child with their homework? I know Wikipedia is not censored--nor do I think it should be--but I don't think we need to push highly controversial topics to the front page, which will clearly offend a great deal of the population. Definately will not improve Wikipedia's reputation worldwide. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment referencing Think of the children, Frecklefoot, but prior TFAs have included The Human Centipede and Frank's Cock -- how is this more controversial than those? — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really thinking of the children so much as "thinking about Wikipedia's reputation". Neither of those titles are as controversial as the title of this article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frecklefoot, so a film about "a German doctor who kidnaps three tourists and joins them surgically, mouth to anus, forming a 'human centipede'" is more permissible and satisfactory to you to see on the Main Page, than a documentary film examining the censorship and freedom of speech issues surrounding a naughty word? What message does that send to parents of children, Frecklefoot? — Cirt (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So did not need to know a movie like that existed. Damaged for life.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freckfoot - you missed out Gropecunt Lane, which was TFA back in 2009. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If children are unscathed by reading about The Human Centipede or, you know, the rest of the entire internet, then this will hardly be the finishing blow. If the image were of the title in a size 75 bleeding red font, then we would certainly do well to discuss issues of taste and appropriateness. But here, aside from the fact of a four letter word, there is nothing here to raise alarm bells. I would not be opposed, if a compromise is necessary, with replacing the image with, say File:Perversion-for-Profit-putnam.jpg. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't run the Putnam frame. For one, Perversion for Profit and Fuck are two different movies. We don't want to confuse people. Plus, why the fuck wouldn't we run a little animation by Bill Plympton? When things like these are public domain, we gotta use 'em. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment by Taylor Trescott, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia's not fucking censored , so why the fuck not ? KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 17:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it is a fine article about an educational film. Opposes are unconvincing. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Am I the only one seeing a potential disaster here. Yes Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and its a film about free speech however Do we want to Drop the F-Bomb on the main page. It could get very nasty and lose wikipedia lots of credibility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gropecunt Lane has previously been a front-page feature. There were a total of two pieces of media coverage that I know of: Popbitch and an approving tweet from Stephen Fry. And that was early September, at the tail end of silly season. The ComCom list collectively cringed, but there was no measurable impact on reputation and I literally haven't heard about the fact of it being featured since (externally, anyway; it was mentioned in passing during the image filter discussions). It's only a single data point, but I don't personally expect a disaster.

Note - this is just a comment on the "disaster" question, not whether it's a good idea for a feature, I'm personally neutral on that - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between gratuitously dropping an f-bomb (which several comments thus far have done), and using the word in context. This is a very good article about an important topic. Yes, people will complain, and while they will do so because they can't move their mind past the word and focus on the message, I don't find this to be a credible reason to prevent it from running. Reso lute 22:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support running this as a TFA, possibly for a July 3 anniversary of FCC v. Pacifica. However, because the film used posters with "F★ck" (or "F٭ck", etc. - some tinkering may be required) , it seems acceptable to me to use this bowdlerization of the title in the TFA to be a bit less shocking to some. However, it would still contain one unambiguous reference to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties (a title I'd prefer to see reproduced in full) as well as one or two to "fuck" as an English word. If that trips off stupid censorware ... well, we already have some issues with that; it wouldn't be anything new. We shouldn't pretend to parents that Wikipedia is 'child safe' when anyone in the world can edit it and arrange via talk page or email to meet with your kid at the local art museum or library. So an occasional shot over the bow like this, I think, can actually be more helpful than harmful. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wnt, much appreciated. I've tweaked the blurb to include the full title of the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, per this suggestion by Wnt. The blurb total characters is still within satisfactory guidelines. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't actually say the word fuck in real life but that doesn't prevent me from supporting this for a shot on the main page. Though I may also a bit excited to read the talk page comments on its big day. A bit something to look forward to on a stressful day. GamerPro64 04:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after much thought. The "opposes" have merit, and support-rationales like: "Wikipedia's not fucking censored so why the fuck not?", are IMO unhelpful, and misrepresent WP:NOTCENSORED. That said, I have been swayed by the talk-page discussion. This is a high-quality article about a serious topic. As for the WMF, while I suppose they theoretically could put a stop to this, I reject the notion that their prior approval is required here. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Why ever not? Sure, we have no obligation to exercise our right to free speech, but that doesn't mean we have an obligation to censor ourselves, right? Double sharp (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, decent article, we're not censored, it should technically be fine. My main concern as Iridescent intelligently puts across though is the possible backlash. It could result in thousands of schools or whatever banning wikipedia for their students which I think in terms of our wider goal to make knowledge universally accessible would be very disappointing and damaging to education. Obviously we can't hold off putting any article on the front page which contains a naughty word, but I do think this requires more thought on possible effects. As Wnt says though perhaps using the same approach as the posters F★ck would be the best way to approach it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article of high quality. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality article. Freedom of speech. Period. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find the argument about triggering filters to be unconvincing-- WP contains adult content and should already trigger such filters. The article has high encyclopedic value. Let it run. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do all visitors go through the Main Page, even? I don't always. (And also, it's going to be a fun day looking at the comments...) Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the current blurb. If the blurb used "fuck" in every sentence, or if we had just run Dick (film) the week before, this would be an oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Wikipedia should not be censored. Cassianto^Talk 16:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar: As an unusual topic, would it be appropriate to be the one for April 1 this year? Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I'd rather not have it for that date. The article treats the topics of freedom of speech and censorship in an insightful manner. Also, there are other dates available before that one. — Cirt (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely not. It is incredible that it is even being contemplated. Extremely poor judgement by all concerned. 86.160.223.11 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support School censorship/filtering facilities quite regularly block access to Wikipedia (or parts of it) for all manner of bizarre and incoherent reasons, and it's not like this will make any difference. The solution to the filtering/censoring issue is addressing those who make the censorship decisions, not self-censoring ourselves because we're afraid of the censors disapproving of us. There is simply no substantive or clearly articulated disadvantage to having this article as a TFA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blatantly obvious troll. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I strongly dispute this WP:NPA comment. My quality contributions on the subject matter of freedom of speech include the WP:FA quality article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and the WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:DGAF. I'm not a usual TFA participant so take my !vote only as thinking that it's no big deal for this to be on the main page; but I have no comment on the actual article's suitability.--v/r - T P 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all the commotion over the appropriateness of the article, there are dead links in it. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you, no more dead links. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I support that Wikipedia is not censored, yet I echo the sentiments above that this could be a PR disaster as far as schools blocking Wikipedia or parents banning their kids from using it, etc. Even if that happens just once, it inhibits the ideal that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia from which anyone can access knowledge. Moreover, I have considered the arguments in favor of support, and though there are some that have merit, a lot of them seem to essentially say Wikipedia is not ___________ censored, so why the ___________ not. This could have wide-reaching consequences, and though some would say that is the price we pay, we can avoid paying it. If this article must run, I would support suggestions made by Dr. Blofeld to "bleep" out the word; at least it would cover Wikipedia's rear end and offer some consolation to an angry parent. Let me close by saying that I support free speech, and applaud Cirt's efforts on improving its coverage, but to me the negative consequences of inhibiting free dissemination of information to everyone outweigh the value of plastering the f-bomb on the front page of the world's sixth most visited site, and one widely used by the entire world, including elementary school kids. Go Phightins! 04:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonspecific date 2

Nonspecific date 3

Nonspecific date 4

Specific date nominations

March 12

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney (born 1947) is an American businessman who was Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 and the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, by his parents Lenore and George Romney, and spent two years in France as a Mormon missionary. He married Ann Davies in 1969, with whom he has had five children. After studying at Brigham Young and Harvard universities, he joined the management consultancy Bain & Company before co-founding the spin-off investment firm Bain Capital. He unsuccessfully ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 Massachusetts election for Senate against Ted Kennedy. He relaunched his political career after successfully running the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he helped enact state health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in America. Romney won the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, becoming the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee, but lost the election to Barack Obama by a 332–206 electoral college margin and by 51–47 percent in the popular vote. (Full article...)

At least 2 points, birthday and 1 year old FAC. 1,200 characters exactly. buff bills 7701 23:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man I wish were president. I Support here as well. Sorry to ruin your perfect 1,200...don't know if we need a "(pictured)" for another 11 characters :) (I think it just would look awkward after the date parenthetical...after trying it). --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need "pictured" when the image is of the subject (nor does TFA use full names either, Buffbills - "Mitt Romney" it is). 4 points at present as the article is widely covered. Tweaked blurb more generally, now at 1,173 characters. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding "spin-off", now 1,182. buff bills 7701 01:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8 deadlinks. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the date - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 *In all the commotion over the appropriateness of the article, there are dead links in it. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 :'''Reply:''' Thank you, no more dead links. :) — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 04:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' - I support that Wikipedia is not censored, yet I echo the sentiments above that this could be a PR disaster as far as schools blocking Wikipedia or parents banning their kids from using it, etc. Even if that happens just once, it inhibits the ideal that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia from which anyone can access knowledge. Moreover, I have considered the arguments in favor of support, and though there are some that have merit, a lot of them seem to essentially say Wikipedia is not ___________ censored, so why the ___________ not. This could have wide-reaching consequences, and though some would say that is the price we pay, we can avoid paying it. If this article must run, I would support suggestions made by Dr. Blofeld to "bleep" out the word; at least it would cover Wikipedia's rear end and offer some consolation to an angry parent. Let me close by saying that I support free speech, and applaud Cirt's efforts on improving its coverage, but to me the negative consequences of inhibiting free dissemination of information to ''everyone'' outweigh the value of plastering the f-bomb on the front page of the world's sixth most visited site, and one widely used by the entire world, including elementary school kids. '''[[User:Go Phightins!|<font color="blue">Go</font>]] [[User talk:Go Phightins!|<font color="#E90004">''Phightins''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Go Phightins!|<font color="#008504">!</font>]]''' 04:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 === Nonspecific date 2 ===