Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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—see Choosing Today's Featured Article). 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
Shortcuts:
Wikipedia:TFA/R
Wikipedia:TFAR
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
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
  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old using Wikipedia for a school project.
  3. ^ The category where the article is listed at Wikipedia: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.
  4. ^ Similar is defined differently than the categories at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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:

  1. If a requested article has at least five supports and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

[[File:Jrobinson.jpg|100px|alt=Waist-up portrait of black baseball batter at end of swing|Jackie Robinson]]

Summary chart

Contents
Currently accepting requests from Error: invalid time to April 16 (only up to April 6 if the entry would have five or more points). The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page:
Date Article Points Notes Supports† Opposes†
March 26American Beauty (film) 3tenth anniversary of Best Picture win 8 0
March 31Death of Ian Tomlinson 3first anniversary; no similar articles recently 13 0
April 9 Battle of Vimy Ridge 3 93rd anniversary of battle 4 4
April 9 Nick Adenhart 2 1st anniversary of death; next to be replaced 6 2
April 12 The Avery Coonley School 3 Founder's Day (observed) 3 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.

Requests

March 26

alt=Seven head-and-shoulder shots, arranged in two rows with four on the top, three on the bottom. Top row, left to right: a middle-aged, lightly-balding, smiling man in a suit; a middle-aged woman with short, spiky, highlighted hair and a tailored jacket smiles with her eyes closed; a smiling young woman with tied-back hair and a v-necked top; a young woman with shoulder-length fringed-bob hair wears a sleeveless sundress. Bottom row, left to right: a middle-aged man with thick hair; a young man, posed in front of a taxi, wearing a bodywarmer; a middle-aged woman wearing a sleeveless halter neck dress gives a large smile.
American Beauty is a 1999 drama film directed by Sam Mendes and written by Alan Ball. Kevin Spacey stars as Lester Burnham, a middle-aged office worker who has a midlife crisis when he becomes infatuated with his daughter's best friend; Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari, Wes Bentley, Chris Cooper and Allison Janney also feature. Described as a satire of American notions of beauty and personal satisfaction, the film explores themes of romantic and paternal love, sexuality, beauty, materialism, self-liberation and redemption. American Beauty was Mendes' film directorial debut and Ball's first film screenplay. DreamWorks bought his Spec script for $250,000 and financed the $15 million production. Courted by the studio after a run of successful theater productions, Mendes was nevertheless only given the job after several "A-list" directors turned it down. Released in late 1999, American Beauty was the best-reviewed American film of the year and grossed over $350 million worldwide. At the 2000 Academy Awards, the film won five of its eight nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor (for Spacey). The film was nominated for and won many other awards and honors, mainly for the direction, writing and acting. (more...)
Two or three points; +2 for tenth anniversary of its Best Picture Oscar win, +1 for my first TFA, a potential -1 because of the appearance of Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins—a feature-length television docudrama—back in January. Could go either way, but I'm happy to leave the final determination up to the regulars. All the best, Steve T • C 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Three points I don't see how there would be a deduction. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically, The Story Begins is a dramatic film, so a strict interpretation of the rules might see it grouped with this as a similar article. Steve T • C 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No, not that, the question doesn't arise, we only do deductions if within 30 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I know exactly what's happened here. What's happened here is ... well, what's happened is that ... I'm a dipstick who misread the instructions. Three points it is then. Thanks. :-) Steve T • C 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support, an excellent movie. I do wonder if the current image works; it might be too difficult to make out the individual actors when seen on the main page. A simpler image might be better. –Grondemar 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They're distinct on my display (1280x800), but I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps one of the actors on their own? Steve T • C 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Sure, I'm biased, but this article is wonderfully written and exemplifies featured articles - we'd be dumb not to put it on the main page! ceranthor 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - A great film article. Pyrrhus16 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: An extremely well-written and -structured aritcle. The timing of its appearance as TFA could not be better. However, I share Grondemar's concern over the composite image at its current size; might the lead image of the movie's poster work better? Jonyungk (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    We can only use free use images on the main page of Wikipedia. A movie poster is fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    How about an image like File:Baby Roses.JPG. Roses are an important symbol in the movie. –Grondemar 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    Replaced inlne image with link; hope you don't mind. Steve T • C 23:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC) No problem! –Grondemar 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    Well, that's probably the wrong kind of rose, but if it's decided that the current image is unsuitable, any one of the images that make up the whole exist separately and can be displayed alone. The Spacey image would be best in that case, though there are a couple of other Commons ones where he looks a bit younger (more in line with how he appears in the film) and so might be more suitable. Steve T • C 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    Isn't it very likely the rose is an American Beauty rose?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, the roses in the film are Rosa 'American Beauty'; the ones at File:Baby Roses.JPG don't seem to be (I'm no expert). That might not matter, but if the current image is to be replaced, I think something less vaguely related (such as an actor image) would be a lot better. Steve T • C 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    If an actor picture were to be picked, I would argue for Kevin Spacey, since he won the Best Actor Academy Award for this picture. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    No objection to using a Kevin Spacey pic, I just liked the movie's symbolism with the rose. I happened to notice a good rose picture on Commons that did not have any distracting objects in the background; I didn't check to see if it was the right species. –Grondemar 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    No problem with the rose pic; I like the idea of keeping with the film's symbology. Only hitch might be that American Beauty roses are pink and the rose petals in Kevin Spacey's fantasies in the film are red. Jonyungk (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I haven't seen this film, but the article seems great. I like the Principal cast image, in part because it makes you read though to check who the actors are. Surprised that no comments have been raised about the clip from the film. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A great article about a great film. I still remember the impression that the image of that wind buffeted plastic bag made on me, and the red petals. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 31

Ian Tomlinson (1962–2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests in London. A first postmortem examination suggested he had suffered a heart attack and had died of natural causes, but a week later The Guardian obtained footage showing him being struck on the leg by a police officer wielding an expandable baton, then pushed to the ground. Tomlinson walked away from the incident but died moments later. After the newspaper published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission began a criminal inquiry and ordered a second postmortem; this one indicated that Tomlinson had died from an abdominal Haemorrhage, the cause of which remains unknown. A police officer has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter but has not been named or charged. The incident sparked an intense debate in the UK about the relationship between the police and the public, and the role of citizens in monitoring police and government activity—so-called Sousveillance. (more...)

Three points. April 1 is the first anniversary of Tomlinson's death, so I'm suggesting it for March 31 because of April Fool's Day. One point for date relevance, and I've been told two points for a similar subject not being on the main page recently. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Blurb is short (only 1,000 characters with spaces); the limit is 1,200 if you want to expand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I quite like it tight, unless you think it's too short. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Raul may accept it as is, or he may expand it a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting topic. --candle•wicke 23:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Deserving of the Main Page, and kudos to SlimVirgin for being flexible WRT scheduling. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Three points Date relevance (kinda), one point no crime etc. articles three months (not six), one point underrepresentated topic (Law).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Though perhaps April 2 might be a better TFA date? It is the exact one year anniversary of the 2009 G-20 London Summit, the last day of protest and the day when newspapers first ran with the Tomlinson story. Pyrrhus16 11:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Fascinating and excellent. Jonyungk (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support on either March 31 or April 2. –Grondemar 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, a most interesting and poignant subject matter. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support both dates. SlimV, are you considering a change to the 2nd? (curious) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer March 31, Ed, because the news coverage in the UK will increase as the anniversary approaches. I think it might look odd if this appeared on the main page when that momentum was over. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as timely, well written, and interesting. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, Interesting. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: 31 March preferably. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - A relevant and fascinating article. ceranthor 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

April 9

The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a First World War military offensive undertaken by the Canadian Corps against elements of the German Sixth Army. The battle was part of the opening phase of the British-led Battle of Arras and was fought between 9 April to 12 April 1917 in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of France. The objective of the Canadian Corps was to take control of the German-held high ground along the strategically significant Vimy Ridge, an Escarpment at the northernmost end of the Arras battlefield. Supported by a Creeping barrage, the Canadian Corps captured most of the ridge during the first day of the attack, the remainder falling to the Canadian Corps over the following days. The German were forced to retreat a number of kilometres to the safety of the Oppy–Méricourt line. Historians attribute the success of the operation to a mixture of technical and tactical innovation, meticulous planning, powerful artillery support, and extensive training, as well as the failure of the German Sixth Army to properly apply the Elastic defence defensive doctrine. The battle was the first occasion all four divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force participated in a battle together and thus became a Canadian nationalistic symbol of achievement and sacrifice. A 250-acre (100 ha) portion of the former battleground now serves as a preserved memorial park, and site of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. (more...)

2-3 points. 93rd Anniversary of the battle and Vimy Ridge Day in Canada (1 pt) and is my first submission (1 pt). The topic is a basic subject matter (1pt) in Canada, but not elsewhere, so I'll let the powers at be decided if that applies. If SMS Moltke (1910) does end up going on the 7th then this would likely be a zero (see talk page)--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Sadly, as it would be sandwiched in between the scheduled World War article for March 14 and potentially the 7-point Moltke article in early April. The oppose is also based on my support of the Nick Adenhart article below, which is also nominated for April 9. Pyrrhus16 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I favor the Nick Adenhart article over this one for the reasons expressed by User:Pyrrhus16. –Grondemar 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. An article on a person is quite different from an article on a battle, regardless of what banner they are grouped together under(as has been noted multiple times before on different requests). I don't see the article on SMS Moltke as a formal request yet, so as far as I'm concerned this takes all three of the possible points (though being Canadian, I would be one who considers it to be a basic subject matter). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - for Grand Dad Smallbones (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I also favor the Nick Adenhart article over this one per Pyrrhus16. Jonyungk (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -Excellent read. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my support for Nick Adenhart on this date. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Two points, not basic subject mattter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • In addition, I do not think this article gets the "basic subject matter" point. Forget 12-year-olds, I doubt most adults outside Canada have heard of this battle. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to disagree, though I am not Canadian. This is the equivalent of Bunker Hill for the US or Gallipoli for Australia or New Zealand, the place at which military action defined a country. I've refactored one comment above that was added confuzzlingly out of order and placed it in chronological order.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree (on both points), though I am Canadian and so may be biased. Most adults outside of Canada? Perhaps, but it depends on where you look. United States? Likely, but I would say that the battle is relatively well-known in Western Europe, particularily in France and Belgium. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, I don't think Bunker Hill would deserve a "basic subject matter" point either. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The date conflict with the article on the baseball player could be easily finessed by running this article on April 12 the anniversary of the last day of the battle. The potential similarity conflict with the article on the battle cruiser is harder to deal with though. It is a pity because this seems like a very good article. I strongly disagree with SandyGeorgia about the basic subject matter point. Junior high school students often write reports on famous military battles, and we have never required (especially for history articles) that a topic be basic subject matter everywhere just that it be basic subject matter in some English speaking country. I would expect Battle of Gettysburg, Battle of Midway and Battle of the Bulge to be basic subject matter because US school children writer reports about them, but I doubt Canadian or Australian kids do. Similarly I would expect Battle of the Somme and Battle of Trafalgar to be basic subject matter because of their importance in the UK, and Gallipoli Campaign to be basic subject matter because of its importance to Australia (and New Zealand). You have to take this sort of relativistic approach to basic subject matter with historic articles, because each country has its own history, and if you don't take that kind of approach almost no historical articles would qualify. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There's already an article for April 12; could not any day during the battle be used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The first and last days of the battle are the most significant, so I would be given to say no (particularly since Vimy Ridge Day is on the 9th; not the 10th or 11th). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

April 9 (2)

alt=A side view of a young man in a baseball uniform, cap, and glove as he is about to throw a baseball off a pitcher's mound in a stadium. A uniformed umpire in the background looks on as the man has one foot nearly off the mound and the baseball behind his head.
Nick Adenhart (August 24, 1986 – April 9, 2009) was an American right-handed Major League Baseball Starting pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. A graduate of Williamsport High School, Adenhart was highly touted as a high school prospect until an injury in his final game required Tommy John surgery. He was drafted by the Angels in the 14th round of the 2004 Major League Baseball Draft, and began playing in their minor league system after the surgery was a success. He spent three full years in the minor leagues before making his major league debut on May 1, 2008. After appearing in three games, Adenhart spent the rest of 2008 in the minor leagues developing his skills, and in 2009 he earned a spot in the Angels' starting rotation. Just after pitching his first start of 2009, Adenhart was killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. There were many tributes to him over the course of the season, including his former teammates spraying champagne and beer on one of his jerseys after they clinched the 2009 American League West division championship.

Two or three points. One for relative date, one for contributor's first TFA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this might be three points; the last baseball TFA was Dr Pepper Ballpark on December 30, so one point for 3+ months with no similar topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No. Sports cuts across sports line. Otherwise we could have baseball on Monday, rugby union on Tuesday, Australian rules football on Wednesday, ice hockey on Thursday, volleyball on Friday, all with their hands solemnly out for those main page representation points. The point (heh) of the mp rep points is to assure different topics a shot at the main page, not to ensure all the sports in the calendar bonus points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Timely and well-written article. Pyrrhus16 17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment points look good, except that the principal author will have to weigh in here to validate that point if it is not you, Wizardman.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Me and Gogo mostly co-wrote the article, though it would be the first TFA for either of us. I'll point him to this so he can confirm. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • As Wizardman stated, it was a team effort (pitcher & catcher if you want to use a baseball analogy). This is my first FA, so I've never had a TFA. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Congratulations. The rule says the nominator has to be a principal contributor of the article, you see. We've interpreted that pretty loosely, and just ask that the person who hasn't had a TFA who was the principal contributor weigh in here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I favor this over the Vimy Ridge article for the reasons expressed by User:Pyrrhus16. –Grondemar 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with Pyrrhus 16 and Grondemar that the timing of this article is better than that of the Vimy Ridge article. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favour of the Battle of Vimy Ridge article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SunCreator; my preference is for Vimy Ridge, as outlined by my support for that article above. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Per Pyrrhus16. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

April 12

alt= A red brick building and three sides of a white columned cloister behind a large reflecting pool

The Avery Coonley School is an independent school serving academically gifted students in Downers Grove, Illinois, U.S. Avery Coonley was founded in 1906 to promote the Progressive educational theories developed by John Dewey and other turn of the 20th century philosophers, and was a nationally recognized model for progressive education well into the 1940s. From 1943 to 1965, Avery Coonley was part of the National College of Education serving as a living laboratory for teacher training and educational research. It became a regional research center in the late 1960s and a school for the gifted in the early 1970s. The campus, designed in the Prairie and Arts and Crafts styles, was landscaped by Jens Jensen, who was known as "dean of the world's landscape architects." Avery Coonley was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007, citing the "long-lasting influence on schools throughout the country" of the educational program and the design of the building and grounds. (more...)

Five Three points – April 12 is when Founder's Day is observed. -- 1 point. This is the nominator's first TFA -- 1 point. This is an underrepresented subject, Education -- 1 point. The last similar article as TFA was Plano Senior High School on March 9, 2008 -- 2 points. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - A different kind of article, so sure. It's unique. ceranthor 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Points look good. Mildly surprised we've had nothing in education last six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • We had Vkhutemas on February 18. The article is also listed under education. Would that count as similar? If so, it knocks the points down to 3. Pyrrhus16 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice catch, thanks. Yes, I would agree. Three points. A skool is a skull.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Are elementary schools and universities considered similar? They fall, for example, under completely different projects. Vkhutemas, if it is relevant, is part of the Architecture project. There has never been an elementary school on the main page.... --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In my view, yes. It falls under the atom/noble gas footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – I won't deny that I'm biased, but I'd just like to make the point that both the Luton Town F.C. and John Douglas (architect) nominations for this day are based around specific anniversaries (125th and 180th, respectively), while this one is not. I'm not meaning to diminish the importance of this article in the slightest; I'm just making the suggestion that perhaps this fine article could wait a year in order to enable one of the two articles I have mentioned to grace the main page on a significant anniversary. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, anniversaries are given a lift in the point scenario, but after that is up to the community to finalize its recommendations through discussion and !voting, and Raul to make the final decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I am also openly biased, and I do credit the importance of the anniversaries, but hope we would not underweight the underrepresented categories in this process. The last school (not a University) article on the main page was Amador Valley High School Plano Senior High School over two years ago. Given the very few school FA's to choose from (five total), your well-meant suggestion would probably make it three years before we would see a school article there again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Amador Valley High School has not been displayed yet. It was promoted to FA only a few months back, so couldn't have been displayed two years ago. Pyrrhus16 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right. I was thinking about Plano Senior High School, March 9, 2008. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that. Schools have several days of significance each year, that this article could be run on, if you deferred to the articles with significant anniversaries. Graduation coming up in June, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It's an elementary school. They don't graduate. ;-) Cliftonian's suggestion was to wait a year, which is what I was responding to. Coonley's birthday is the most significant day both for the article and the school, but I would not be opposed to some alternative if there were a suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Some elementary schools do have graduations, though I did not because I went to a K-8 for several years. Last day of school, then. It's just like this: we've got a bit of a logjam here and it is a credit to the good will with which editors have worked on this page that so many editors are wishing to come here and make suggestions, two years ago it was a total mess. But only one article can run on that day. No doubt all of these articles will run, Raul is very accomodating about running articles which people are interested in, by my ballpark calculations, nearly 90 percent of nominated articles run within a year, even if they don't run on the day requested. That's pretty good, considering the increasing backlog of articles at WP:FA. I rarely vote, but I think the community likes it when there's an anniversary involved, especially one that gets press coverage --Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment As one of the OTRS agents who handled the ticket, I can verify that it is covered by the OTRS release in that all content on that website (visual and textual) is, but the OTRS release specifically empowers Nasty Housecat to act as an agent for the school. It does not liberally license images and subpages. (The language from the release that mentions images says, in part, "We permit <name redacted> to license the entire site -- inclusive of images and subpages. We have no limitations on what <name redacted> can license -- we trust him." We do not know what, if any, private instructions the copyright holder may have given Nasty Housecat regarding the licensing of the content. It may be that they do not wish the logo released under CC-By-SA. Feedback may be necessary on the use of a non-free logo in this regard; however, until Nasty Housecat licenses it under CC-By-SA, it is- like any other logo - completely non-free and should be evaluated in accordance with non-free content criteria. (He's only edited the page once you did, SunCreator. Surely that's standard Wikipedia:BRD rather than edit warring?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Then I can understand your confusion, but the actual terms are quoted above. That said, if the school should have no objection, then certainly Nasty Housecat should license it under CC-By-SA, since free content is always preferred to non-free. FWIW, I've asked User:J Milburn if he has an opportunity to look at the usage of the non-free logo. I know he does quite a lot with non-free images, whereas I do not. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I heard you the first time. :) But I can actually see the OTRS permission, and I know its terms. The statement there is not a sufficient licensing statement to presume that Nasty Housecat intends by it to license the entire site under CC-By-SA; if this is what he means to do, he needs to say so explicitly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well it's just a matter of Nasty Housecat saying yes explicitly then and labelling the image free use accordingly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Possibly. But he is not the copyright holder, though he has authorization from the copyright holder. Again, we don't know what private instruction he may have received about releasing this logo, when he has released other text and images under CC-By-SA. I presume now that he is aware that free images are preferred, he will do so if he is able. However, even the Wikimedia Foundation reserves its logo, so it may be that the school does not want this particular image released for reuse and modification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The image has been deleted. What is it that you are opposing and what do you want me to do? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if the image was released under CC-By-SA and added to the article. As the image is now removed then I strike my oppose. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Does this satisfy your original concern about the "free equivalent" to the image? If so, will you strike your oppose or, if not, be willing to respond on the talk page? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My concern stands. We are no nearer to a solution, in fact possible further away given your protracted position. I ask you again to remove the current image without a valid rationale from the article and then if required add the image with a valid license. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed the image pending further discussion and will move that discussion to the talk page. Now strike your oppose? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Languages