Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

ERRORS discussion of TFA for June 19, 2020 (George Washington and slavery)

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors
 – — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be much objection to the first sentence phrasing of "...but only provided for the emancipation...", with efforts to change that to some form of "...and provided for the emancipation..." (my emphasis), based on NPOV and OR concerns (discussion at Talk:George Washington and slavery#Lede sentence POV issue). I'm not sure what leeway exists for someone to defend "their" article when it's TFA, but I've reverted the use of "and" twice now (second time is pending following page protection), which puts me on a path to edit warring. The issue will, I'm sure, be resolved in due course through the usual processes, but for now, if the "and" version is allowed to stand in the article it will be out of step with the front page blurb, which currently retains the "but only" wording. Factotem (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to provide a global view. Should it perhaps mention the United States? The only way to find out that he was part of the foundation of the United States is to click through on the link Founding Fathers, whereas this information is probably important enough to be mentioned explicitly. I propose to change the text "Founding Fathers" to "Founding Fathers of the United States of America". --Gerrit CUTEDH 13:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Odd phrasing – George Washington was a slaveowner and Founding Father who became uneasy with the institution of slavery....
– Smacks of POV and is awkward. Washington certainly is known first of all for being a 'founding father,' president, etc. Suggest something like:
"George Washington was a U.S. Founding Father who, although a slave owner (two words) himself, grew increasingly uneasy with the institution of slavery...."
– Sca (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The first link must be to the article being featured.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, fixed. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Washington's primary relevance in this article is as a slave owner. He became a slave owner long before he became a surveyor, soldier, farmer, general, president and ultimately a Founding Father, and he remained a slave owner throughout. Further, the first sentence was, after much discussion, sequenced slaveowner then Founding Father to make clear that the subject of the article is George Washington and slavery, not George Washington alone. I ask that the original wording, "George Washington was a slave owner and Founding Father..." be restored. Factotem (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Sca just means he fixed his suggestion, not that he changed the TFA. I agree with Wehwalt and Factotem that the current wording is better. I'm moderately curious about "slave owner" vs "slaveowner", as I think (but cannot prove) the former is more common, at least in the US, but only moderately. I don't think it really hurts anything as one word. I'm also curious if anyone besides Gerrit thinks the first sentence needs a reference to the US. I'm not actually sure about the benefit/cost of that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
IMHO, mine reads better, and states the theme better, too. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Your first link is an Easter egg. I assume that's why the TFA is worded the way it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to toot Gog's horn: he wrote the initial blurb, I made one comment, and then he participated in discussions at the blurb review at WT:Featured article candidates/George Washington and slavery/archive1. I think whenever we have blurbs like this one, it's a judgment call how quickly to say "American" ... we didn't get it in fast enough for one commenter above, and that doesn't surprise me, we often get that objection. (Since it wasn't a black-and-white issue, but a judgment call of how fast to say it, I didn't object when I first saw it.) It might be possible to move "after the American Revolution" up into the first sentence (after "slavery"), if that would make people happier. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If people insist, the simplest solution is to expand out Founding Fathers of the United States. We have characters to spare. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
George Washington was a slaveowner and a Founding Father of the United States who became ... --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
No objection. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fine with me Factotem (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, but feel free to revert, anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue here for me is that the reader is not initially aware that the article is about George Washington and Slavery. I made the assumption (and I'm assuming others will likewise assume) that the article is the main George Washington article, and to point out in the very first sentence that he was a slaveowner would, of course, be controversial. I understand that it's an incorrect assumption, and that the style manual most likely rules out the possibility of heading the FA with the article title (even though the recent FA titles are shown below), but that's my objection to it. Otherwise I have no issue with the sentence as currently shown ("...was a slaveowner and Founding Father"), because it is objective fact and most importantly, utterly related to content of the article itself. RandomGnome (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You're not the only one to think that, and George Washington was a slaveowner was fixed upon as a way of signalling that the article was about Washington and slavery and not the main article for George Washington. Factotem (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is: "As well as a Founding Father of the United States, George Washington was a slave owner who grew increasingly uneasy with the institution of slavery...." I know that the first link is not the bolded link but, per all the comments here, IAR — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I do see the point, and I would have strongly considered that if it had been an option. The bots malfunction when the first link isn't to the article. This might be a good example to jump-start a discussion on whether the bots should be rewritten, or corrected, to handle these rare cases. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not an improvement in my opinion. This article is not about George Washington in general. It is about his relationship to slavery. Beginning with the phrase George Washington was a slave owner, I believe is genius, direct and to the point.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose extricating the "founding of the United States" away from slavery. The simple fact of the matter is that the United States was founded on slavery. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Ugh. If someone starts the discussion I just talked about, I'll weigh in. Otherwise, if a similar issue comes up in a future blurb, I'll make a comment at WT:ERRORS alerting people whenever the blurb review commences. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Working around the bot is not hard. You can simply create (or protect) the pages the bot is supposed to create (or protect) manually or fix them after they are created (or protect).
My objection is to pussy-footing around the issue like we haven't known for centuries that he was a slaveowner; that his entire family were slave owners. Or acting like his founding of the United States is unrelated to slavery. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree that the present phrasing is very, very jarring as the impression given is that the topic is George Washington per se and that his being a slaveowner is the most important thing about him. Even in the context of Washington and slavery, the only reason we are discussing him being a slaveowner is the fact that he was a founding father of the United States and hence that is the first thing that should be mentioned. FOARP (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to recognize that in today's climate, this is tossing gasoline on a fire. The phrasing is atrocious, as FOARP mentioned. Buffs (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did it take until today for this issue to be robustly debated at ERRORS while the item in question sat front-and-centre on the main page? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Because although we try very hard to get the main page blurb settled in advance, some people do not see it until the big day.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This looks like it was in place by the end of May. Such a shame that the indignant crowd didn't take an earlier look. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This will probably be archived in a bit over an hour. Should we have a discussion on whether there is some way to avoid needing the article title to be the first link? If so, where?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article title should necessarily be the first link. If there's a technical issue relating to that, it should be fixed. Often we write corrupted English to facilitate the limitations of Wikipedia, it should certainly be the other way round. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information as to whether it would be possible to eliminate the need for the article title to be the first link? I'd also like to congratulate Factotem on an excellent and (as it proved) timely TFA under trying circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Just acknowledging that I probably dropped the ball on this one by not bringing up these issues three days ago at WP:ERRORS. In rare cases (such as this one, I think), I wouldn't mind something like "George Washington, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, owned a plantation with hundreds of slaves". For those few readers who have no idea what any of the first words mean, we could repeat them, with links. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no blame or dropped balls. People would still have come in on the day with what they wanted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
True. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
In other news, starting July 1, I'll be putting off doing blurbs for recently promoted FACs until the end of September. I did something similar in May and it seemed to work well. I'll still be collaborating in real time with Gog and anyone else who's doing blurbs, and I'll still collaborate once a month on the blurbs that get scheduled for the next month. I'm busy with my plants project, and I'm hoping that by doing a bunch of blurbs at once, it will make it easier to get feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection notice wording

"This page is part of the Today's featured article (TFA) section for the Main Page and so is protected from editing while it is on the Main Page (and for 24 hours beforehand) because of its prominence." even on older pages like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.213.181 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't what you're asking but ... a separate issue is that, after they run on the Main Page, these TFA pages serve as archives and should be treated the same way you'd treat any archive page (i.e., don't edit it, generally). - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about protection

I am a regular patroller at WP:Requests for protection. Every once in a while there is a request for protection of the Featured Article currently on the front page. I know that we automatically move-protect that article, but I have the impression we try not to semi-protect unless it is unless absolutely necessary. I have seen discussions along the lines that we want to maintain the "anyone can edit" philosophy, and the fact that such article are always carefully watched by many people. Such articles often get a lot of editing by newbies and most of it gets reverted; the current article Black currawong is typical. I just declined protection for that article, noting that the unnecessary or silly edits were being reverted, and the vandalism edits were being handled by blocking the user. But I would like a clearer understanding of our general philosophy about protecting or not protecting that page. Thanks for any comments. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking quickly, I see a racist edit, an edit meant to embarrass Wikipedia and an apparently promotional edit, none of which were reverted immediately. I know you know what you're doing, but if we can't do anything about that, that's a little depressing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) (Since the Main Page still gets about 6M hits a day and TFA articles generally see a big uptick, 10 to 20 minutes doesn't feel like "immediately" to me, but YMMV). - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I actually agree with you. I would have normally protected this page, but I thought I had seen discussion/arguments, here or elsewhere, that we should leave it alone except in extreme circumstances - and then protect only for an hour or two. I'd appreciate hearing further input here. I may have misremembered or misunderstood an earlier discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I'd like to hear some input, too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
When I've protected TFAs I've tried to do it for a brief period, an hour perhaps, on the ground that the vandal will get bored and go away.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Wehwalt: Thanks for the input; very practical and helpful. By imposing a minimal time, does that imply that, in general, you think it's best for a TFA to be open for editing by everyone, to the extent possible? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to get a feel for how the community feels about this. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
No, my personal opinion is that it should not be open for everyone. But I respect the state of consensus on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
So that is the consensus here? That's what I've been trying to find out. I had a vague impression that I have seen such a guideline in discussion, here or somewhere else, and I wanted to find out if that is true. As I recall, not everyone agreed, but it was described as something WMF feels strongly about. (Personally I don't really get it; they want new users to feel welcomed, but since most new-user edits to TFA are promptly reverted, I'm not sure that "welcomed" is how the new users feel.) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that semi-protection would have been appropriate in this case in response to at least one of the edits I mentioned; no preference on how long the protection would last. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We did have Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection but that seems to be deprecated now and there is a note in the protection policy about protecting for short periods like any other article. I tend to try and keep it open as much as possible but sometimes the TFA does need protecting for a short burst. Woody (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, re I had a vague impression that I have seen such a guideline in discussion—there was a discussion around end of May–beginning of June due to a spike of vandal activity targeting TFAs. I remember only because I've added Chestnuts Long Barrow (TFA for June 5) and other planned TFAs to my watchlist. Favonian, you've protected Chestnuts Long Barrow, perhaps you remember where that discussion had taken place? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It might have been Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#TFA vandal, but I'm not sure. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I found it: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 168#Proposal: Bot for the current main-page-related vandalism. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I think I've got a handle on it now, and the protection policy link nailed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 1#New "Wikipedia Article of the Week" designation

@TFA coordinators and others interested:  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 1#New "Wikipedia Article of the Week" designation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Main page viewcount

I apologise if this turns out to be something painfully obvious. However, the pageview analysis tool shows that views for the main page dipped by almost 50% from April 30 onwards, but this page used to, and continues to, say it gets a daily average of 15 million. Was there some layout change because of which the tool no longer reflects the correct view count? I'm not seeing the 15 million number anywhere. Ping Harrias --NØ 13:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to include the link. This, including all "agents" shows that the total average views is around 14.7 million per day. The link you provided is essentially the number of "human" views. I concur that it is probably better to adopt that figure, now that we are able to better estimate it, but I think we should have some discussion around that, rather than summarily change it. Harrias talk 13:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Related discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Image size

@TFA coordinators We have a new template {{Main page image/TFA}} which automatically adjusts the image size (discussed at Talk:Main Page#Plan for implementation). Please start using it in August, if convenient. The format is very simple and does not require a |width=, which can be included if an override is desired. 

{{Main page image/TFA|image= |caption= }}

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

See example at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you'll need to replace it in the auto loading thingie that sets up when we set up the TFA blurb page. Scheduling TFA is already tricky enough .. there are a LOT of steps to take and if you want us to use a new template, we'll need it to be simple - i.e. already loaded on the page, rather than one more step we'll need to remember. (I'm not kidding about a lot of steps - the directions I got from a former TFA scheduler fill both sides of a letter sized sheet. In contrast, the tasks that are required for ALL of promoting and arching actual FACs fit easily onto half a page: User:Ealdgyth/FAC tasks.) --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ealdgyth in all particulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, me too, integrate rather than mwke us have to change something every time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I have already pre-loaded this. I guess what I really wanted was not to surprise you with a new template with no warning. I understand you already have a lot to contend with and that August may have blurbs that use either. I will clean-up everything as it comes through. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I have also pre-loaded it to the "create" link on the archive pages. Let me know if I missed something or you run into issues. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Qibla for 12 September

An indignant yet polite message posted to the help desk protests the inappropriateness of Qibla for 11 September 2019. Of course 12 September 2020 is what was meant; but as Joseph2302 has pointed out, the Qibla article would have been featured in the US for hours during 11 September.

Joseph2302 adds: "Also failing to see how running the Qibla article on 9/11 would be offensive anyway, as it's not in the slightest bit related to 9/11." While I cannot claim to read Joseph2302's mind, I speculate that he is a member of the reality-based community. Not everyone is: plenty of Americans and others have been encouraged by junk TV to fervidly attribute the September 11 attacks to Islam in general. Did the relatability (in some people's minds) on 11/12 September of Qibla to 9/11 occur to any of the four TFA coordinators? -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responsible for scheduling this month. That's where it came out when I put together the list, putting together different topics in a way that is hopefully varied to the community. I had looked at the article while it was at FAC, though it was promoted before I had a chance to review it. I felt the ship was a good article for 9/11. I did not give a lot of thought to the 12th, but don't think Qibla was inappropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
To expand a bit. No one had asked for either September 10, 11 or 12. I looked at the page we have of articles that haven't run yet that have date connections, saw ones I liked for September 10 and 11, scheduled them and (slightly later) removed them from the page, here. That left the 12th (the 13th had been requested). I saw no article I liked that had a September 12 connection and went to a list of articles recently promoted to FA that I had earlier noted as possibles to run in September. Qibla was next. (I had earlier run Tweed Courthouse for September 6, but I actually had reviewed that article for FAC, so I had listed it before Qibla). The only thought I had about Qibla was whether it clashed with September 1's article about a piece of religious music by Monteverdi. I decided they were very different, scheduled it for the 12th, and moved on. That's probably more than anyone wants to know about the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
To my mind, to feature it even in the vicinity of 9/11 is not to take into account Islamic sensitivities about that date, and I'm not Muslim, or even religious. It is not the fault of Wehwalt or the TFA people, though, but that of the nominator of the successful FAC (and it has little to do with reality-based this or that). He should have seen this, out of general awareness of nuances. As a referee of one of his FAC submissions, I remember him once insisting on including a picture of poems attributed to a Grenadan ruler. I asked him for a translation of a few portions of the text. My impression then was that he could not read Arabic with any facility, let alone (medieval) Andalusian Arabic. I had an expert read it, and he said the nominator was wide off the mark. He was simply using a Spanish source for a mechanical translation. I let it go, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: In what world is this even relevant to the topic at hand "As a referee of one of his FAC submissions, I remember him once insisting on including a picture of poems attributed to a Grenadan ruler. I asked him for a translation of a few portions of the text. My impression then was that he could not read Arabic with any facility, let alone (medieval) Andalusian Arabic. I had an expert read it, and he said the nominator was wide off the mark. He was simply using a Spanish source for a mechanical translation. I let it go, ..."? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@In actu: Probably not the world in which nominators rush from poor submission to poor submission in such a blind hurry that they cannot tell price from value. Shades of meaning, wider meanings, and sensitivity belong to value. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
"To my mind, to feature it even in the vicinity of 9/11 is not to take into account Islamic sensitivities about that date" How so? FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you for explaining. I still think that the timing was unfortunate, but I'm sure that if I were doing your job I'd make numerous inadvertent mis-choices. If Covid or some other catastrophe hasn't felled me by October '21, I'll try to remember to take a look at the list of coming attractions, and to express an opinion if I have one (an opinion with which others would of course be free to disagree). -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Comments are always welcome, that is why (except in the case an article needs to be replaced, usually because its principal contributors have another date in mind), I give everyone ten days notice of an article running and have the whole thing done a week before the end of the preceding month. In this case, the TFA blurb was publicly posted on August 22 and was edited by a number of people, but no one said anything about the timing. That being said, on the assumption I'm still handling the last month of each quarter next year, I think you can expect the 9/12 article to be uncontroversial by anyone's standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • My view on this is that the qibla article had no direct relevance to 9/11, and we shouldn't be lowering ourselves by not putting articles on dates that some conspiracy theorists would be offended by. So absolutely no issue for me running this article on 12 September- would be madness to put a blanket ban on anything vaguely related to Islam on 10-12 September every year, as that would just be letting the conspiracy theorists get their way. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Joseph2302, I think you are being melodramatic. Muslims and others are hardly "conspiracy theorists" for believing that Islamophobia is real. It's encouraged from high places (example). Wikipedia's avoidance of additionally priming it would not require "a blanket ban on anything vaguely related to Islam" for three days every year; instead, a minor shuffling around of anything very obviously related to Islam, where doing so would be easy. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Joseph2302: Just as if 3,000 Muslims had been killed by a Christian terrorist attack and you were running that article on Christmas? No direct relevance, of course, only a conspiracy theory. What are the chances that would happen, ever? Mainly though I'm writing to emphasize again: I'm in no way blaming Wehwalt for this. Month after month he does stalwart work (along with others) in organizing and streamlining a complex undertaking. It a measure of his commitment to the task that he has responded a number of times already in a matter in which the yoke of guilt is far from bearing down on his shoulders. As I said, there's the value and there's the price. FAC these days is chock full of past masters of the price. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Islamophobia is real, the people who blame all of Islam for 9/11 are the nonsense conspiracy theorists who in my opinion would be the people with an issue with this FA. And my personal opinion is that we shouldn't be doing anything because we might upset some 9/11 anti-Islam conspiracy theorists. If Muslims would be offended by us running an Islam hook on 9/11, then that's a different issue (and not the one I was alluding to). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This one is scheduled, but doesn't have an image yet. Suggestions? The first image in the article might be okay, with a suitable crop. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While I'm here ... anyone have a suggestion for the image for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2020? (There are several good options, I think, we just haven't picked anything yet.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Dank, the first image in the article James Humphreys (pornographer) is a fair use image. Are fair use images allowed in TFA section of the Main Page? —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I thought it was copyleft. No, they're not eligible. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
A picture of the approximate site of one of his "establishments", then or now, would work for me, if we can find one. There may be one in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

TFA Coord discussion

Dank could you help me find this TFA Coord discussion so I can understand the problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It was email only. Three supports, one "I've been busy, no opinion either way". It was by email for the reason given in that edit summary: the world is in bad shape at the moment, and WP isn't much better. People are preoccupied, and not at their best. We'd prefer to put off the discussion. Late January has been mentioned as a time when things will hopefully be a little calmer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
So I guess three supports indicates no particular problem or issue I should work on solving for now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Sandy. Please don't read this as a veiled request to make some kind of change to make it acceptable. The only issue (speaking for myself, I haven't asked anyone about this) is the need for more input before making that change to WT:TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, while you (Dank) clearly don't want an elongated discussion about this, I don't see how it can really be considered 'a big change'. It is just streamlining some links, and matching a format that has already been implemented at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. I'm not sure how many TFA coords there are, but three supports and one non-committal opinion seems an odd reason to revert it; surely just let it happen, as it isn't like it is changing the TFA process in anyway. But anyway, you don't want a discussion, so let's kick it down the road for two months for... reasons. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, for people who don't know already, the TFA coords have no super-vote in discussions. If you want to talk about it, I can't stop you and wouldn't want to. So, first things first: is this one opinion, or is there some general sense that this would be a good time to talk about adding this template to WT:TFA? - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a consolidated template for all three processes (FAC, FAR, TFA), in which you can expand only the portion applicable to each particular page, while keeping everything available in one place. The consolidated discussion is over there. If there is a suggestion, issue or improvement, it would be helpful to keep the discussion in one place (the most read place, which is FAC). (What you have here now is that you come to this page and find no link to where you put pending requests, which is solved by linking it in the new template.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 30, 2008 has been nominated for deletion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 30, 2008. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Image switch?

I'm a bit concerned about the image selected for this nom and would like to suggest the one that's on the nom talk page. Can I just go ahead or should there be more discussion? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your cropped photo looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The crop has code in it that doesn't work (automatically, at least) with {{Main page image/TFA}}. I'll ask for help at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dank! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Immune system

The original nominator hasn't edited since 2013 or I'd have asked them if they have any objections, but do you think we ought to consider either a re-run for Immune system, or having it ready to run at short notice once mass vaccination is rolled out? Interest in the topic is for obvious reasons going to be higher than normal for the next few months, and medical FAs are rare enough that it might be good to highlight those we have. Its previous run was in 2007, so it's well past any arbitrary cut-off. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent I'm in the course of scheduling December. I can give December 7 or 30. The first gives you less time to update but the 30th may be less-viewed. I'd like to wrap the month up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This is more spitballing on my part than any particular urge—I have no connection to the article. If you (plural) are amenable (I know short notice changes are a nuisance) it might make more sense to have it pre-approved and slotted into the schedule once either the US or UK approves the first vaccine and mass inoculation starts being rolled out, when interest in the topic will be at a peak. ‑ Iridescent 16:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I always try to schedule an article where I am nominator for the end of the month that I schedule. I am going to do so for December 30. If there is a call to use immune system as TFA, I can slot it in there with no fuss no muss.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Graham Beards and Ajpolino: for an idea of whether it is up to snuff ... Iri, a great idea. We could make it medical collaboration of the month if needed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed issues at Talk:Immune system and proposed the article for the December Medical Collaboration of the Month, but please be aware that medical editors are COVID weary; in its current state, I don't believe it should be run, and it remains to be seen if others will take on the needed improvements. Mostly it needs restructuring to account for haphazard additions since TimVickers stopped editing. Wehwalt, in terms of scheduling, and to avoid using too many of our limited number of medical FAs in one month, should editors undertake the improvements in time, I doubt that Spicy will care if complete blood count is pushed 'til January for TFA so juggling that slot is a possibility if this happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's see first of all what happens with article improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Immune system is almost ready ... so glad we could do this ... What a shame that we missed this (a friend sent it to me), when we have four related FAs !
We have FAs,
and maybe more ... I haven't checked. These are the kinds of things for which I wish we could make last-minute adjustments at TFA, which is now scheduled so far in advance. I 'spose I can post this over at ITN, although I Don't Do ITN ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at the other page (never sure which page to use). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog

Starting January 1, Gog the Mild, who recently became a coordinator over at FAC, will be taking over my blurb-related duties here at TFA. (I won't be stepping down ... I may be needed for scheduling some day, and I'll still be writing a few blurbs as needed, but I'm passing the baton to Gog.) We're not holding an election (as we normally would) because he just came through an election with flying colors, and because he won't be doing scheduling. He has been helping with various TFA-related jobs for 18 months now, including writing almost all the military history blurbs for much of that time, and I've never seen any complaints about his work ... quite an achievement. I have many people to thank before I go, of course, and I'm not really going anywhere (just busy with other projects here and elsewhere), but this is Gog's moment, not mine. Let's extend him a warm welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dank, happy to be able to help. You were always going to be an impossible act to follow, and I am now never going to live up to that write up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome, Gog, and thanks for taking on all this responsibility! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Dan never said that I would have to do any of that R word! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Great blurb writer, has done around a dozen of mine, barely a tweak needed. Welcome Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey Gog the Mild. I just noticed this. You are a hero. --Gazal world (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gazal world and that is very true . Seriously, just doing my bit to help out Wikipedia, as you do in different areas. Everything is going well for you I trust? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Policies for TFAs

Hello, some articles may be appropriate for Featured Article status, but not for main page placement through TFA, an example of this would be very recent globally distributed commercial products, like videogames, movies or series, because this would at best constitute unintentional advertisement, and at worst it would open up an opportunity for promotional campaigns and single purpose accounts to feature products on the main page. Are there any policies regarding TFA nomination that are not present in FA nomination?

Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that any FA constitutes unintentional promotion ... by the time an article gets to FA, whatever advertising effect it could have has already passed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Not any FA, only articles where the topic are recent commercial products that are globally distributed, for example a videogame that was released 6 months ago and is still on sale. See Paper Mario:The Origami King, released in July, and aimed at TFA in February 2021, not a bad result for a hypothetical campaign. Now the article in its current state is most likely just innocent unintentional advertisement, made by a young fan of the products, only an indirect consequence of the promotional campaign that resulted in the hundreds of web publications that compose the reference corpus of the article. But considering that the nominating account was created February this year, we cannot for certain discard the possibility of a single purpose account, can we? Even if it's not the case now, given enough time, it will. Considering the monetary value a front page placement on Wikipedia would have, a 1 year salary would be a possibly worthwile investment. A policy on this specific kind of subjects would remove this present uncertainty and future vulnerability.--TZubiri (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean Paper Mario: The Origami King, currently at FAC. Your AGF issues aside, you can raise these kinds of concerns if the article passes FAC, and when it appears on this page to ask for a slot-- at that point, you can Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware, the point of this section in the talk page is to ask for TFA policies that don't apply to FA, I take it there are none?--TZubiri (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Not in that sense. FAC is the gatekeeper. If they pass it, we consider it eligible to run.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not connected to Nintendo in any way, just simply a fan. Le Panini [🥪] 05:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article, and invite contributions from readers of this page. Narky Blert (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

14th Feb

There is a Marilyn Manson album scheduled for the Valentine's Day FA. I think this might be considered tone-deaf at the very least after recent accusations. Crispclear (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It was a request at WP:TFAR and was scheduled before the allegations came out. If folks think we should reschedule that’s fine, but there doesn’t need to be something decided this second. Also suggested replace,ents would be nice. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It should be replaced. Perhaps The Triumph of Cleopatra? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I wasn't suggesting that it had been scheduled with any sort of agenda and it does have a tie to 14th February so I can see why it might have been requested. Cleopatra sounds fine to me for what it is worth. Crispclear (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware (yet) of what controversy has happened around Manson, but this seems to be a reasonable reason for a swap. There are lots of songs that could be used: I suggest the older "All You Need Is Love (JAMs song)", as it could use some TLC, which it will get if run TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This run 7 months ago with Ansel's face on it, but now Wikipedia has to be better? (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be? Crispclear (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Every time, not only when the alleged sexual aggressor is not a pretty face. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap needed tomorrow

Hi @TFA coordinators - just a heads up that there's been a report regarding at WP:ERRORS regarding tomorrow's TFA. The article doesn't seem to be up to scratch, which lots of unreferenced paragraphs and suchlike. Please can a replacement be scheduled? I can find something myself if necessary, perhaps from the upcoming sets, but it would no doubt better for you guys to handle this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I’ve removed the large section about the RAF base which was not only unsourced but undue weight in the article and then cut a coup,e of other sentences that were unsourced also. One reason for putting older FAs up is to see improve,ents...and show that anyone can edit...and make improvements..including you. If we only run recent promotions we get screams that we only feature a few topics...so we try to broaden the subject matter a bit.sometimes that means that some later additions will need to be cut before the article ripens on the main page...which is not something that only the TFA Coords can do. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This needs to stop. I have responded here. Something is very wrong when ERRORS is going beyond mainpage blurbs, and this trend has been to the detriment of the overall pool, and led to a decline in activity at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Secondary to these "non-emergency" emergencies (twice in a week?), Nine Inch Nails live performances was swapped in for an article that ran on the same day a year ago (?) after it had already been on the mainpage for 10 hours. This was an abuse of "emergency" swap as there is nothing "emergency" about an imperfect TFA. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", and we encourage new editors by not pretending a level of perfection that simply does not exist in FAs.
But ... since the NIN article did run for 10 hours before it was swapped,[1] do we consider it has already run or not? That is, how do we mark it at WP:FA and WP:URFA/2020? I suppose it is considered already run now ?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the above point. If someone fixes up the issues then maybe it could run again. But I'm not going to apologize for pulling something from the primary slot on the whole project that probably wouldn't even be permitted at DYK/ITN/OTD, let along be considered Wikipedia's best material. Three editors, including TFA coord Wehwalt had already opined that some action was needed. If there's some consensus that TFA articles are not subject to the usual main page rules for WP:V, or that its primary purpose is to weed out articles that need an FAR rather than to showcase Wikipedia's best material, then show me the discussion that led to that. But until then, I consider it fair game for issues with the article to be raised at ERRORS, as they routinely are for the main page's other sections. And by the way I'm not having a dig at the coords, I agree that running old FAs is a good thing to be doing, but it would be nice to do some basic fixing up first... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Moved discussion from WP:ERRORS

Since WP:ERRORS is not archived, and is a relatively poor place to have a meta-discussion about how WP:ERRORS should/shouldn't be used to remove TFA's with problems, I've taken the liberty of moving the discussion that Sandy is refering to here (collapsed, below) for easier reference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that long box at right is messing with formatting. Any help welcome. The ERRORS thread is down below the box. Maybe I should remove the {{cot}}? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Floquenbeam Hopefully fixed, as that long sidebar didn't need to be here anyway, when a collapsed version is available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, @Guerillero:, who started one of the ERRORS threads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Copy of thread on ERRORS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about NIN TFA

+1 Toddst1 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @TFA coordinators Since the band's creation, the live performances of Nine Inch Nails, an industrial rock band, have been given worldwide. Jeez, can we form a decent sentence please? What are we trying to say? The Nine Inch Nails are an industrial rock band that have performed shows around the world for a long time. Wow. The Nine Inch Nails are a pretty impressive band, but that's what we say about them and that awkwardly? Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I've sent an email to the other coordinators regarding the possibility of swapping it. I don't have time myself to look into this right now, but will later in the morning (US time) if no one responds. Regarding the first sentence, the first link in the blurb has to be to the TFA article, which led to some awkwardness here.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Since there don't seem to be TFA coords available to action this, and there are several voices now calling for an immediate swap, I have WP:BOLDly gone ahead and done that. I've swapped in Pacific swift which is the TFA from exactly one year ago. This is what we typically do at DYK when a quick swap is needed, and is probably preferable to putting a brand new one in for its slot, since there now isn't a full day available. Obviously if anyone thinks I've done the wrong thing, please revert or do something else. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, the latter parts featured several unreferenced claims, this is hardly what FA is about (although, admittedly, what would I know?) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought something had changed on the mainpage! Had to double-check that I did see the NIN article when I logged on earlier. Shame it's in such a state. Same for the List of Nine Inch Nails concert tours article, which is a FL, but uses www.nin.wiki for sourcing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency seems to have stopped being maintained. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Luckily I seem to have figured out and followed all the suggested steps anyway!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru It's a work of art that replacement FA: "The moult is completed in the wintering grounds, where adults have a complete moult" - professional writing and comprehensive explanation of "moult" (whiskey?!). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
ERRORS should be looking at issues in the blurbs which appear on the mainpage. I object to this business of swapping out TFAs because they aren't perfect, and an FA not being perfect is by no means a reason to swap out on an "emergency" basis. An article with issues is likely to be fixed up when it runs TFA, and if not, that is a good recruiting tool for WP:FAR.
Please step doing this. This kind of activity is what has led to a decline in the overall pool of FAs (as people think they don't have to keep older FAs up to snuff, since they won't run TFA), and has deprived FAR of a recruiting tool that brings new editors to FAR when they encounter FAs that need approval. This agida was created over article content, not the mainpage blurb. Problems in older FAs are addressed at FAR, not at ERRORS. And running only "perfect" TFAs gives a very wrong impression about the overall quality of the FA pool. Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"; one of the ways we encourage "anyone to edit", and discourage elitism, is to allow ... anyone to edit ... by not implying or pretending that FAs are perfect. And taking this trend too far, using an "emergency" when one is not, is heading down a slippery slope of undermining the entire FAC/TFA/FAR process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Since this seems to principally involve TFA, may as well move it there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Cheadle Hulme

  • See above. Please stop this. ERRORS is for examining problems on the main page (eg, in the blurb). No FA is perfect. The place for improving FAs is WP:FAR, and the result of forcing the TFAs run to be a non-representative sample of the overall pool was that activity at FAR declined and improvement of older FAs declined, as editors stopped updating articles that wouldn't run TFA. I sense that ERRORS is going beyond its remit here, and getting into the territory of FAR, to the detriment of the overall pool of FAs. Let those that are less-than-perfect run, as they are likely to be fixed while on the main page. That is part of the whole "anyone can edit" deal, and good for it ... as opposed to, there is nothing I can add to this project, with a misimpression of perfection left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

I think it would be helpful if people used the Tomorrow's TFA and Day after Tomorrow's TFA slots at WP:ERRORS for the purpose they were put in for, or even the article talk page before that. That way you get considered discussion and you don't get overnight crises. There is a reason why articles are scheduled in advance, so not only the principal editors but the community can look at them. That is the most helpful course to all concerned. Everyone involved was acting in perfect good faith of course, I'm not criticizing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Wehwalt. A less-than-perfect FA is not an ERROR, no FA is perfect, and unless egregious (eg, BLP or copyvio) issues are present, should never trigger an "emergency" replacement. No FA is perfect, and we want "anyone to edit". Those who are concerned about the overall quality of the FA pool are welcome and encouraged to help in the ongoing effort at WP:URFA/2020, or at WP:FAR. That said, the TFA Coords are then encouraged to view WP:URFA/2020 as a means of knowing the status of a potential TFA.
Specifically: start noticing deficient FAs and adding them to WP:URFA/2020 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and I agree that if notice has been given of deficiencies, Coords might not want to run those TFA. Specifically, the URFA chart is sortable so that Coords can pull out those that have not run TFA, and see if several editors have marked them "Satisfactory". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Separately, could the Coords decide if WP:URFA/2020 should continue to list NIN as already having run TFA? That is, how do you all handle situations like this in terms of whether you would decide to re-run a TFA when mainpage day was truncated? Up to you, but please remember to change the entry at WP:URFA/2020 should that be the decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Define "emergency"

It sounds like a) there was some difficulty locating the "emergency" TFA (which may require attention), and that a separate discussion defining when that should be used would be helpful. My suggestion is that an "emergency" use of the set-aside "emergency" TFA is:

  1. No TFA scheduled when we are within x days of TFA (3, 5 ?)
  2. BLP issue found in the TFA
  3. Copyvio found in the TFA
  4. Something extremely "distasteful" as in, what happened with Marilyn Manson

and that the "emergency" TFA should not be used in instances where there are otherwise issues with quality of the article. That is not an ERRORS issue; it is a FAR issue. If we start switching out TFAs for other reasons, we go down a slippery slope that could end at, "because IDon'tLikeIt". Editors now have many days in advance to review TFAs, and WP:URFA/2020 is available for flagging issues to Coords' attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I've got additional situation I think it would make sense. In the rare case that serious verification issues are found in the article (pervasive, not just one or two sentences), I'm not sure that we should be putting up for everyone to see, simply for accuracy issues. The additional traffic to TFAs could help spur some updates, but like with the Battle of Tippecanoe issue before Victoria rewrote it - some decent-sized chunks had to simply be excised because they weren't supported by sources and were probably original research. When it is pervasive to that extent, I can some harm coming from running something like that where it looks fine but contains a lot of false stuff. But beyond that case and the ones listed by you above, I don't think we should be pulling TFAs, in hopes that the extra traffic will lead to improvements. As an aside, @TFA coordinators , I'd be willing to donate Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment as the emergency TFA if needed. TFA isn't near as big a deal to me as it is to a lot of editors, so I'm perfectly fine if mine never get run or only get a partial days. Hog Farm Talk 18:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
How many TFAs do you think have been "improved" while on the main page? I'm 100% certain that the viewing public don't believe TFA is a place to "improve" articles, rather to see "Wikipedia's finest work" which, in today's case and tomorrow's case, is far from the reality. When TFA is the worst quality item on the main page, things need to be examined in more detail as to what the real purpose of TFA is. And by that I mean not that of editors embroiled in process, but what the actual readers expect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I trust the Coords and think the last few days have second guessed them, creating unnecessary agida, while bypassing established processes. I doubt our readers notice as much as “we” do. I suggest an “emergency” is something that can lead to real world harm, ala BLP or copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question about how many TFAs have been improved on the main page, nor discusses the situation relating to the purpose of TFA. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - thanks to Ealdgyth for removing the sections raised yesterday that were completely unreferenced, but there are still major problems with this article, which has now been on the main page for nearly ten hours. There are a large number of citation needed tags, two orange banners for update needed and expansion needed, dead links, pieces of text that don't correspond to what the linked source says etc. Not to mention more minor issues that would be raised at FAC such as sandwiching of text between images and single-sentence sections. If this article was proposed as a hook at DYK or ITN it would be rejected immediately, yet here we are telling readers this is an example of our best work.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well this goes to heart of my question: is TFA about convincing our readers that "featured articles" are our "best" work and exemplify that Wikipedia is a trusted and reliable source or is TFA about demonstrating that articles can feature on the main page full of failed verification, full of out-dated information and full of dead links in the hope that someone feels bold enough to try to address the arcane markup of citations (for example) that are long-dead? A straw poll of my (non-Wikipedian) colleagues suggests they'd expect the "featured article" to be an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man and SandyGeorgia: I have no problem with things that are very fixable (inconsistent formatting, some more facts that could be added, 2-3 CN tags, etc.) on a TFA. My problem is when the quality of a TFA is lower than the quality of the articles in DYK, ITN, and OTD.

    If this were a DYK, the DYK prep makers would have rejected Nine Inch Nails live performances due to the quality. If they didn't the admins that promote articles would have. Neither the prep makers nor the promoting admins caught this, someone would post on WP:ERRORS and a patrolling admin would remove it. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, Guerillero, for helping towards "let's define emergency" so we know when to engage and switch out the TFA. After breakfast, I will set out some context for consideration in the discussion. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts Sandy, but per my above comments I'm broadly in agreement with Guerillero. There's a de facto standard that DYKs, ITNs and OTDs have to follow including all major claims verified, no orange or yellow tags, and a basic coverage of the essential points as they are known at the time of posting. Obviously an FA is supposed to go considerably beyond this basic standard and also have what we used to call "refreshing brilliant prose" (i.e. criterion 1a), suitable images, be a thorough and representative analysis of the sources etc. We could debate whether an article which no longer meets these latter points is still valid for TFA, but I don't think there should be compromise on the standards that apply elsewhere on the main page. I'm not going to use the word "emergency", because that is over-dramatizing the situation; and you'll note that I haven't swapped out today's TFA even though it doesn't meet the above standards. But from my point of view we need to be clear that this isn't permitted going forward, and make sure the community and the coords are on the same page such that midday swaps wouldn't ever be considered. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    I invite you to step up and become a TFA coord. Due to constraints on my time, I've already told the other TFA coords that I will need to step down as TFA coord in the near future... so please.. be my guest and step up to the plate and do the work. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ealdgyth: I might actually consider that, as I did really enjoy being the POTD coordinator for the year or so I was there, it's quite fun curating content for the main page. I'm a bit wary though, because like yourself my time is stretched thin... current lockdown regulations have thrust me into a role as educator, in addition to my work commitments and on-Wiki life (which includes an unwritten expectation that I'll muck in with checking and promoting DYK hooks to the queues, as well as writing content - which is what I really want to be doing!) What sort of time commitments does coordinating actually involve?
    Anyway, notwithstanding that question please don't assume that any of what I'm writing here is a criticism of yourself or anyone else. From what I can see in this thread so far, there seems to be quite a bit of a disagreement about what TFA is really for, and what its rules really are. Evidently there was an assumption, as voiced by Sandy, that subpar TFAs are OK on the grounds that they may attract editor attention. I don't agree with that, but given the uncertainty I wouldn't think of blaming you for having gone with the version of things mentioned by Sandy. I suspect some sort of RfC or similar might be required, so that we can ensure we're all on the same page going forward. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    DYK, ITN and OTD are not broad community processes. Anyone can add something to OTD, and they are basically chosen by one editor. DYK has similar issues. ITN has broader community input, but please (after the COVID debacle) don't pretend their quality is any better. FAs are vetted by the community; I think it apples and oranges to compare. Those processes have no correcting mechanism except for an admin to step in: the correcting mechanism for TFAs is FAR, and pretending that the mainpage content is error free (beyond what is on the mainpage) is folly. Whether or not you have used the word "emergency", we have an "emergency TFA" process, and we should define when that is engaged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    This doesn't answer the question which is fundamental to whether this was an emergency or not: is TFA designed to improve really duff FAs (like today and yesterday's before it was pulled) or is it designed to demonstrate to the readers that the project produces excellent material than can be used and relied upon? If the former, then by no means were we in emergency territory either yesterday or today, we just had TFAs which were the lowest quality target articles on the main page, ripe for improvement. If the latter, then we had two emergencies where the FAs really needed to be pulled as they clearly didn't promoted Wikipedia in a good light at all (to our readers who don't much care about "anyone can edit", they care about "can we rely on Wikipedia"), so once again, what is the purpose of TFA? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I think our only question here is "when do we pull a TFA". We aren't producing enough FAs to guarantee that we can always run recently promoted TFAs, or that even those will assure "perfection". Considering the reality, working to sort through those that haven't run TFA via WP:URFA/2020 is productive, and all we can do is figure out under what circumstances do we pull the deficient. Criticism is easy, but sitting at a computer for hours at a time to figure out how to balance quality, diversity, date relevance, and resource starvation is quite demanding. I aim for practicality. And no matter how much we say we didn't intend to criticize, when a TFA has to be pulled, the person who had to sit at their computer for a ton of hours to sort through hundreds of potential TFAs, and competing demands, is going to feel the brunt of the criticism. Ours is to figure out how to help rather than (in Guerillero's words) "freeform complain". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    We should pull a TFA when it is very clear even from a cursory glance that it no longer represents the best work on Wikipedia. Running the terrible article we insisted on keeping on the main page today will have done no good to the project at all, it will have undermined confidence in what this project is claiming to be a worthwhile endeavour. This is not about scheduling FAs or sorting potential TFAs or FAR or anything like that, this is about the few rare instances where the quality is so compromised that it's obviously going to be harmful to run it on the main page claiming it to be representative of Wikipedia's finest articles. If, however, the remit of TFA is now to encourage readers to get stuck in and improve the purported finest article on the main page, that's a different matter altogether and "emergency" pulling takes on a whole new definition. That's why I want to understand what the community think the purpose of TFA is. No-one seems to be prepared to answer that, and that's what we need to focus on right now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Context; please have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics#By year and Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020: the latter can be sorted by TFA date to reveal how many very old (2004–2009) and old (2010–2015) FAs have not yet run TFA. FAC is no longer producing 365 FAs per year, while there are still plenty of old TFAs that can be run. The TFA Coords have multiple challenges before them: quality is one factor in scheduling TFA, but so are mainpage diversity, date relevance, editor consensus at TFA/R, and others. To maintain diversity on the mainpage with fewer broad topics being promoting at FAC, the Coords must increasingly rely on the older FAs.

This was one of the main reasons that URFA/2020 was launched-- to systematically identify and address issues in the older FAs, and provide a sortable format that the Coords could use to see which have been marked "Satisfactory".

So, we have a deficient TFA today, Cheadle Hulme, which I have now noticed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, which means if issues are not addressed within a few weeks, it can be submitted to WP:FAR.

Could we use this as an example to help define when we use the "emergency" TFA and pull an article from the main page?

My personal view is that one bad TFA (as long as it's not a BLP or Copyvio issue) is not going to break the Wikipedia. And I prefer to view the glass half full rather than half empty. The very good news is that one of the editors who is combing through and identifying issues is a recent participant at FAR, who came there because of the WP:URFA/2020 effort. So an important objective has already been achieved; more scrutiny on older FAs, and more participation to clean them up via FAR. I don't see any harm in letting it complete the day at this stage of the game, as it can serve to demonstrate how the overall process (FAC, TFA, FAR) works.

But that still leaves the issue of defining how/when to engage the "emergency" pulling of the TFA in the future. As we must increasingly rely on older FAs, and hopefully if more and more editors start combing through TFAs, we are likely to see more of this. How "bad" does it have to be to pull it, and how is that measured? Please remember that whatever criteria is set up, it could be applied to something you wrote in the future, and I don't think we'd all want a TFA to be pulled because someone rightfully put a jargon cleanup needed tag on the article. My suggestion, because we are this far into the 24-hour UTC cycle, is to let this article run, and use it as an example to help define processes that will be more useful for the future. My own preference is that I have no problem with admitting that no FA is perfect, and the deficiencies in this FA aren't harming anyone, so letting it run at this point can be more useful in the big picture than pulling it. We need to give solid information about when to pull a TFA, and encourage editors to engage FAR and WP:URFA/2020 rather than complaining about the state of the FA pool overall, which won't solve the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I agree with you that freeform complaining isn't going to help this cause any and that Cheadle Hulme should live out the rest of its time on the main page --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
So, if everyone viewing this discussion will go review one old or very old FA that has not yet run TFA (or any other old TFA for that matter, as TFA is now using re-runs), and add their notes to the article talk page, with a link back to WP:URFA/2020, we will be on the right path.
And, by the way, 1080° Snowboarding is a very old FA set to run this month, so don't wait 'til the last minute to check it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: It looks runnable to me --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

So, in the absence of solutions or definitions, how about this? At the time that a month is scheduled, volunteers go through and flag at WP:URFA/2020 any old FAs that have been scheduled for the month, so that other volunteers will have a unified place to pre-scan for problems? They can be flagged in the notes column with “TFA pending”, and anyone can then sort on that column to locate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that's a neat idea if you can find the volunteers, job done. But the point remains, terrible FAs will still make it to the main page, because of human nature and real life etc. What constitutes the need to replace one? Should today's have been replaced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be nice if you would let one solution-based discussion happen— hence the new section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Your suggestion is fine (hope volunteers review the TFAs in advance), hence "job done", it's a no-brainer, but that doesn't answer the questions on when an emergency is an emergency and how to deal with them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I will try to do it --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Guerillero; one thing I do is to watchlist the first TFA page of the month, to know when the Coords start scheduling. Then the older ones for the month can be flagged at URFA, and hopefully that will trigger reviews. That does not guarantee that deficient FAs will not slip through, though, as WP:URFA/2020 does not include FAs promoted after 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If it would help, Sandy, I have the draft list for March prepared already, though I'm waiting to schedule to give the community a fair shot to nominate at TFA/R. I could send it to you (and anyone else who drops me a note by email) to allow more time for checking. Or I could simply post it somewhere, it's not secret.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Don’t want to create extra work, so will leave that to you ... but if you were to post it anywhere, the talk page of WP:URFA/2020 would get the attention of all the editors working on that effort. Or you could emai me and I will pick out the older ones ... but with my “growin’ old ain’t for sissies” health issues, Hog Farm is increasingly assuming leadership in the URFA effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Better to post it here I think. What others do with it then it’s up to them. I will try to get it done tonight but my time is very occupied right now.––Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 Pending TFAs from "very old" or "old" Unreviewed FAs

See WP:URFA/2020

@The Rambling Man, Amakuru, Floquenbeam, Guerillero, and Hog Farm:

  1. Feb 7 TOMORROW, Margate F.C. is a 2007 FA that does not appear to have been updated for several years. TRM and Amakuru, might you and ChrisTheDude be willing or able to get on this post-haste? Margate F.C.#Return to Hartsdown Park seems to stop at 2016. (I will separately ping the talk pages of these football editors to make sure they see this ASAP.)
    Re Margate F.C., the article is pretty up-to-date. The history section doesn't mention anything since 2016 because nothing of note has happened -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Whew, thanks ChrisTheDude-- that's a relief (momentary panic here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, as it happens I gave it a quick glance a couple of days ago and notifed it was mainly fine. I updated some attendance figures then and I think TRM made a few tweaks too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru, ChrisTheDude, and The Rambling Man: when you do this, marking the article “Satisfactory” at WP:URFA/2020 would save other editors from having to check, and help move old articles off that list ... which would also make it easier to locate the deficient FAs ... this one could go if you would all sign off, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Feb 16, Dermotherium is a 2011 promotion, nominator Ucucha who is hardly active.
    Not aware of significant new work on this animal since 2011, so not much updating needed.
    I'd be OK though with not running these fairly short unillustrated FAs that I wrote if we have other articles to showcase that can go into more detail. Ucucha (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ucucha, it's not hard to guess that the Coords are always thrilled to run your articles, as they are sound :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Feb 19, SS Mauna Loa is a 2008 promotion; might we get Peacemaker67 or Parsecboy to give it a glance?
    Unclear why we are re-running a ship when we have so many ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC) OOPSIE, so sorry, I confused the ship with the volcano of the same name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sandy, this is an article about a ship. Named after the volcano. Feb. 19 1942 was the date when she was sunk in WWII with heavy loss of life, so it looks like it's being rerun for the date connection. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Feb 25, Grey currawong is a 2010 Casliber promotion; Cas, have you been through?
    I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Feb 26, Oryzomys gorgasi is another 2010 Ucucha promotion ...
    Coords, might I suggest not running two older FAs from one inactive nominator in the same month? Who can review both of Ucucha's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: The citations are a mess due to archiving some links but not others. I don't know how to deal with archive links in the Ucucha citation style. Would there be an objection to converting them to CS2 templates? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    Guerillero Ucucha is around sporadically; it might be better to ask him. I wouldn't worry about perfection in citation formatting, and do you really want to take on the work of correcting them ? :) But it's up to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm OK with changes to the citation style, although it doesn't seem particularly useful since the citations are in a consistent style and they tell you where to find the sources. All but two of the sources are to physical journals and books anyway; the links are just for convenience. I don't think anything very significant has been published on this species since I wrote this article. I should get around to publishing the fact that is also occurred on Aruba though. :) Let me know if there's something specific you need my help with. Ucucha (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. Feb 27, The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a 2010 promotion from a nominator who is no longer active; who can check that one?
    Fwiw, the The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a Moni3 article and probably fine. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, but that's 10 years and we have to check that crap hasn't been plopped in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: I will take a look tonight --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 00:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, Guerillero, any that you review, if you can mark as “Satisfactory” at WP:URFA/2020, that is one less for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: It is satisfactory. I need to tinker with the post-Moni citations to get them to the Moni format. But, it looks good to me --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. Feb 28, 1080° Snowboarding, is a 2008 promotion from a retired nominator.
    Looked at it yesterday, and again today, and I think it's fine. I've marked it as satisfactory. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Hog Farm: I concur --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lots of reviewing needed here. If you find deficiences, please note them on talk, and add a link to the talk note at WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all; it looks the rest of these are within the realm of reasonable, to better. On to March! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 tentative lineup

I'm posting this list, which is tentative, and I'm not cutting off TFA/R, to enable checking of article quality. This is something of an innovation and I don't take this as a precedent. "Free choice" means it was chosen by me, in all cases because there was nothing suggested for that day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Interstate 70 in Colorado (Moabdave) 2009 Roads. Free choice.

2. Lionel Matthews (Peacemaker67) 2020 Warfare, TFA/R.
3. Carmen (Brianboulton) 2012. Music. TFA/R (rerun)
4. Warren G. Harding (Wehwalt) 2015. Politics. TFA/RP (100th anniversary of inauguration)
5. Riegelmann Boardwalk (Epicenius) 2021. Architecture. Free choice.
6. Northern voalavo (Ucucha) 2011. Biology. Free choice
7. The Grand Budapest Hotel (DAP) 2020. Movies. TFA/R
8. Women's poll tax repeal movement (SusanW) 2021. History. TFA/R (International Women's Day)
9. Paper Mario: The Origami King (Panini!) 2021. Video Games TFA/R
10. Battle of the Aegates (Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare TFA/R
11. Typhoon Maemi (Hahc21 and Hurricanehink) 2014. Meteorology. Free choice.
12. Limusaurus (FunkMonk) 2020. Dinosaurs. Free choice.
13. Lewis and Clark Exposition gold dollar (Wehwalt). 2014 Numismatics. Free choice
14. Nasr of Granada (HaEr48) 2020. History TFA/RP
15. Battle of Halmyros (Cplakidas) 2018. Warfare TFA/RP
16. Zino's petrel (Jimfbleak) 2010. Biology. Free choice
17. O Captain! My Captain! (Eddie891) 2021. Literature. Free choice.
18. Australian Journal of Herpetology (Bobamnertiopsis) 2020. Biology. Free choice
19. University of Washington Station (SounderBruce) 2018. Transport. TFA/R
20. Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany (Serial Number 54129) 2020. History. Free choice.
21. Sirius (Casliber) 2008. Astronomy. Free choice (rerun for the equinox)
22. HMS Princess Royal (1911) ( Sturmvogel 66 ). 2011 Warfare. Free choice.
23. Lewis (baseball) (Therapyisgood) 2020 Sports. Free choice.
24. Buruli ulcer (Ajpolino) 2020. Medicine. Free choice.
25. Biblioteca Marciana (Venicescapes) 2020. Architecture. TFA/R
26. Hi-5 (Australian group) (Satdis) 2021. Music. Free choice
27. Sennacherib (Ichthyovenator) 2021. History. TFA/R
28. Manned Orbiting Laboratory (Hawkeye7) 2020. Engineering/Space. Free choice
29. Hannah Glasse (SchroCat) 2019. Food and Drink. Free choice.
30. Dresden Triptych (Ceoil, Victoriaearle) 2013. Art. Free choice.
31. Dr. No (novel) (Schrocat) 2016. Literature. Free choice. (Anniversary of publication)

  • Comment Unless one of articles that listed as TFA was protected long time ago, they will be receive high level of IP vandalism. It is the arena that vandals can edit in bad faith. 182.1.230.155 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That is flat out untrue. Most TFAs get minimal vandalism when on the main page, and every study that has ever been conducted shows that the majority of IP edits are at minimum in good faith. ‑ Iridescent 08:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Stepping down..

As I mentioned above, I've been considering this for a while, but I'm stretched too thin and something has to give. While I've mostly enjoyed being a TFA coord, and I've loved working with the others, it's a pretty hefty drain on my time and I'm tired of not being able to actually work on editing articles like I originally got involved with wikipedia to do. I will still remain as an FAC coord, but I told the other TFA coords a while back and now I'm making it official. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks you for the long hours and hard, selfless, thankless work. I am not disappointed in this news, as I think your talents are sorely needed at FAC. We have not even begun to address the FAs that came out of years of neglect of sourcing reviews while you were engaged here instead of there. You will be missed here, but appreciated where you are sorely needed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I really want to get back to editing articles some, quite honestly. And working on stuff outside Wiki has to take priority - I have a book to plan with another author as well as my own to work on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Understood, and I've been having similar thoughts. You've always understood what it means to be dedicated and professional, and it's been a pleasure working with you. You'll be missed at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson TFA

See #14th Feb SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved from WP:Main Page/Errors
 – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned to see Heaven Upside Down as today's featured article, given https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/marilyn-manson-dropped-manager-1124545/ and similar developments. As editors, we realize that a topic being featured doesn't imply any endorsement of the topic itself, just the quality of its article, but that's something many readers may not understand. Given that 99% of the recent news coverage of Manson has been about the abuse allegations, readers are going to assume we're featuring it because of the allegations, not because of whatever actual reason we chose it months back, and when they click on it, they're going to be confused to not see any coverage of the allegations (WP:NOTNEWS is likewise something that most readers don't thoroughly understand the way experienced editors do). We could be featuring any other FA right now, so I wish we'd scheduled something that doesn't make us come off as tone deaf at best. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I expected to see something like this here today. It's unfortunate on a number of levels, but I wonder that pulling it would only worsen the matter. (Wondering again what having implemented this before the fact would do...) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not really an error. Please consider moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and talk to the TFA co-ordinators. Please also be encouraged to check out the queue of upcoming TFAs and participate in the selection of TFAs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This was avoidable. At least six women just accused Manson of abuse. I know we're WP:NOTCENSORED, but featuring his album right now just seems tone deaf. gobonobo + c 05:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators With respect to the many victims of Marylin Manson, please change today's featured article. Tacit approval ( or ignorance at best) of rape and abuse is unacceptable on a site that aims to be neutral and academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.232.213 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This was raised above, 10 days ago. (see #14th Feb). I thought it had been changed; what happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that was a different article (Nine Inch Nails live performances, and removed for quality reasons. gobonobo + c 06:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
No, it was not; please reread #14th Feb. We discussed this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You're totally right. gobonobo + c 06:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that we're only a quarter through this TFA's period, I'd strongly support replacing it. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that is probably for the best. I have a lot of respect for the editor who worked on the article, but the timing is rather inappropriate right now as already discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@TFA coordinators Pinging the coordinators. SarahSV (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we talked about replacing it, suggestions were given above, and it should be replaced. This was discussed in several threads on this page. The ball was dropped here. A suggestion was given in the 14th Feb discussion above. Just replace it; the Coords were already asked about this 10 days ago, and nothing was done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Allrighty then ... Hog Farm mentioned above on this page that he would offer Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment as an emergency TFA,[4] and there is a blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, I have not pinged Hog Farm as he just had a concussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If it helps, the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service article I led the development of an nominated has just passed a FAC, and I'd be happy to volunteer it as an emergency FAC for use now (or later). Gog the Mild prepared an excellent blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service/archive1 which is good to go. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hang on, I'm reading the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced it because there seems to be consensus for the change. If anyone sees there are things that need to be done beyond the RECENTLIST and the changes to the talk pages of the two affected articles, I'd appreciate it if they would just do it. Whether articles replaced mid-day should be eligible to run again or should be listed as having run can be discussed at some point. My thanks to Nick-D for their willingness to have their article run.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Wehwalt Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who brought Heaven Upside Down to FA status back in November, I have to apologise for the trouble I've caused. I feel a deep sense of shame and regret over this. Obviously, had I known of the looming controversy, I would not have nominated this article for TFA back in December. When this story broke in the beginning of February, I contemplated coming back to TFA and asking for my nomination to be replaced with something else. But I made the mistake of believing – since my work on the article pre-dated the current controversy, and was given both the FA and TFA stamp of approval, so to speak – that there wouldn't be a problem with this still running. Had I been pinged to the discussion above ("14th Feb"), I would have gladly suggested it be replaced. Anyway, I'm sorry for all the headaches I've clearly caused to everyone here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You've caused no problem. You've done fine content work here. Don't be discouraged by something like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest less bad weather TFAs?

Did you notice that of all the things in the multiverse, more than 3% (1 per month!) of TFA are about bad weather? And they are all the same? Here's the template:

Name or greek letter. The weather around YYYY-MM-DD was really bad. My ethernet cable has the same TLA. It rained cats (see what I did there?) and dogs. Boy, was it windy. Stuff was blown around and broke. People got hurt and even died. Here's a vortex picture from space and one with colored dots. Politicians were useless. An obscure record was broken.

The force is strong with Wikipedia's weathermen. They should no longer be allowed to allocate more than 3% of featured articles. 1 in 30! Are there only 30 subjects after which we need to rotate through them all over again? There are so many subjects with more variety than weather aftercasts that deserve a better chance of TFA selection.

To present the hard statistical facts for about the past 12 months:

Maybe two per year, is that reasonable? -- Schweikhardt (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, small beans! The MILHIST has it sewn up a lot tighter than that; during the same period, we had over seventy TFAs on battles (mostly 20th century), battleships, war memorials, officers and—err—antipodeans winning military medals, being the most popular. (For the purpose of comparison, you understand.) ——Serial 15:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's what we have to work with in selecting for the main page. If we're going to reduce the number of meteorology, military history, and videogames (the third of the three groups which people always claim are "overrepresented"), do you see why we're going to run into a problem? To restate something that's been said so often it's becoming a cliche, if you think Wikipedia is over-representing something, the solution is to write some articles about those topic you'd prefer to see. ‑ Iridescent 15:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Ironically the op has a point, albeit for the wrong reason, wrt the sped at which hurricane FAs are being featured on the main page: there's only 20 left, and at this rate, they'll have done their money within the two year.
As a—somewhat impermanent—claim to fame, I see I am currently monopolizing Royalty and nobility  :) ——Serial 15:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"TFAs on battles (mostly 20th century), battleships, war memorials, officers and—err—antipodeans winning military medals". That seems to be a fine mix of different topics to me. I also note in passing that between 1 January 2020 and today there have been 23 TFAs about military conflicts, seven from the 20th century; hardly "mostly". (There have been more non-20th-century conflict TFAs which I personally nominated for FA - eight - than 20th-century ones in total. Possibly this is where the (perceived) problem lies? ) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"TFAs on battles (mostly 20th century), battleships, war memorials, officers and—err—antipodeans winning military medals". That seems to be a fine mix of different topics to me. They are not; they are subsets of one topic—20th century warfare—or two—WW1 and WW2—at most. ——Serial 15:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, did you read my second sentence? There are far more military history TFAs from outwith the 20th century than from within it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@GogtheMild: I have no idea why you feel the need to ping me to a conversation that I am clearly watching. As for your "second sentence", it does not contradict my own comment regarding a broader timespan. ——Serial 16:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
TFA Coords, do we not have a TFA perennial FAQ somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
PS, while we are on the mainpage diversity problem, another plug for attention at WP:FAR. Another route to mainpage diversity is improving older FAs listed at WP:URFA/2020. This has proven a useful route for the under-represented and under-populated category WP:FA#Health and medicine. We have very little medical content to feature. Buruli ulcer is up this month (March), and I hope that dementia with Lewy bodies will run in July for Robin Williams birthday. So with that (four months between them), we are out of new medical FAs. But menstrual cycle has been tweaked up considerably by Graham Beards at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2, and it would be a good candidate for May (it last ran in 2005), meaning a medical TFA every two months (as opposed to the previous none in five years).
So FA people, please do the jargon check and review that it deserves! By participating at FAR, you don’t have to invest a lot of time, but you can help improve TFA diversity. (It is pretty awesome that Femkemiline brought WP:MILLION Earth back to standard to run TFA on Earth day this year, and we should reward that kind of effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Serial, remember to stay WP:CIVIL. But, I guess, we have no control of what areas of Wikipedia people are more dedicated to. And honestly, with a pro-medic (Sandy), a history buff (Gog), and a Nintendo nerd (me) were gonna go in circles with this conversation. We do have a list of articles that haven't been on the front page, and we could start enforcing the gap between similar articles, so lets focus on those areas. Panini🥪 03:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I fail to see a problem here. TFA is a showcase for Wikipedia's best content. That content is written as a hobby in editors' spare time. Those editors write about topics they're interested in. For more diversity, the solution is to write about something you think isn't given enough attention and nominate it at FAC. That's exactly how all those articles on battles, ships, war memorials, hurricanes, birds, mushrooms, coins, video games got there. From experience, it's easier to write a series of articles on similar subjects because you already have the sources available and the background knowledge to make the research easier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 28 § Template:Today's featured article request

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 28 § Template:Today's featured article request. I think this template is unused, but wanted to notify you. @TFA coordinators Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Main Page

To avoid last-minute issues: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2021. This went through WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Is there no better target for the final link than Wikipedia:April Fools, which is an index? Modest Genius talk 15:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Modest Genius, I don’t think your query will be seen here; it would have a better chance if you posted it at the discussion at TFA talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Copying across as requested. I suggest linking directly to April Fools' Day, as {{April fools}} isn't intended for article space. Modest Genius talk 17:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Modest Genius, agreed. I added a link parameter to the template and will set it to April Fools' Day. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Modest Genius talk 11:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Recently featured" on April 1

Consensus to run TFA and a rough consensus to include recently featured with make-up days. There's really no policy to weigh here, so it really comes down to what participants think is (1) fair to previous TFA writers, (2) useful for readers, and (3) funny. Participants generally agree that running 4 recently featured links on 2 April (i.e., the three that would have run on April 1 along with Groundhog Day) is fair enough. Some editors point out that the links are informative and let readers know about what was previously featured, so replacing them would be misleading or harmful. This argument was in the minority though, and roughly twice as many editors wanted the recently featured section included as wanted it excluded. Participants generally agree that the blurb is funny and worth running, but disagree on whether the recently featured section is necessary for the joke. Some argue that the recently featured addition makes the joke more obvious (implying worse), but others suggest that it is a good thing as the joke in the blurb might be missed at first. Since there's no policy to go off of, I fall back to numbers which largely favors including the recently featured section in the joke, as long as the replaced pages are made up the following day(s). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi folks! So following this TFAR proposal, we've agreed to schedule an April Fools' Day TFA of Groundhog Day with a blurb that repeats itself after the first few lines. To further the joke, the TFAR proposed that the "recently featured" line at the bottom of the box consist of "Groundhog Day (film)" three times. SandyGeorgia has expressed concerns that some nominators might feel it unfair to not have their article appear the normal three times in the "recently featured" list, so per their advice I'm opening this thread to assess consensus on that.

Personally, I think the extra bit of the joke would be appreciated by readers, and the actual recently featured articles are only one click away via the bold "archive" button, so I'd like to see it included if possible. If we really care about each article getting three days in the "recently featured" list, we could have it display four articles instead of three for April 2–4, which would give each of the three articles that would've appeared on the 1st an extra "makeup" day (so, for example, April 2 would be this; I doubt readers would notice).

Courtesy pinging the affected nominators Ian Rose, Ceoil, Victoriaearle, and SchroCat, and the TFAR participants @Panini!, Spy-cicle, Darkwarriorblake, Wehwalt, Bilorv, Enjoyer of World, Aoba47, and 3 kids in a trenchcoat: – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support with makeup days as nominator, with second choice being support without makeup days. Thanks everyone (especially the affected nominators) for your input, and for working through the slightly more complicated than usual preparations to get this blurb to the front page and hopefully bring some much-needed cheer to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The question relates to this edit by Art LaPella. Until he made that edit, I had not realized that the three previous days would lose their pageviews. I reverted Art’s self-revert as I think this needs more discussion. I don’t think taking away the previous days from the previous TFAs adds to the joke enough to warrant doing that ... and I question whether people realized this would be part of the plan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I understood that this was part of the plan and support it with or without the makeup days. I think it's a really nice detail in the joke. Makeup days would solve the issue, and I don't think it would cause any new issues (e.g. with text overflowing), but I also don't see it as an "entitlement" to be listed in "Recently featured" for three days rather than fewer (in this case, two). — Bilorv (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandy above. Looking at Paper Mario: The Origami King pageviews, it still received another 11,000 views simply being in the "Recently featured" section. But if the nominators really don't mind (I wouldn't, really, with the makeup day), I'd support it. Panini🥪 19:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Please run Groundhog Day as suggested. Having had 18 TFAs in the last two years I hadn't realised that the "recently featured" line gained 'extra views'. 'My' last TFA was on Wednesday; in the following three days it had 14,000 views. I doubt if Wikipedia or myself would have noticed much if that had been the article's more normal 140. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Could this not be solved by just running 4 recently featured articles the following day? I've never noticed there was a recently featured section tbh.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we link to the three previous articles, but pipe their links to make it appear as "Groundhog Day (film)" each time? Just a thought in addition to the makeup days. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn’t advise that. Remember that we lost April Fools altogether on the main page because of the number of people who objected to misleading readers, and that would be misleading. At any rate ... what matters now is that this gets a solid discussion before April 1, as history shows people will come out of the woodwork to complain no matter what choice is made :) The discussion to re-initiate an April Fools TFA was poorly attended, and perhaps not everyone is aware of the delicate history and the need to anticipate complaints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with makeup days I believe the repetition of Groundhog Day in the "recently featured" portion makes the joke more obvious and seem more intentional. I second the above comment by SandyGeorgia that there should not be any intentional misleading links as that was a major issue in the previous April Fools. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with makeup days per Aoba47. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I support the groundhog thing—it's rather clever (well done!) and fully in the spirit of a 'cerebral Fools'—but it should stop with the blurb; replacing the previous TFAs is going too far though (FTR: I oppose it). They are not just there to get 'extra hits' for editors, but functionally they provide information to the WP:READER. I do not see how taking information away from the reader and making misleading statements is fully in the spirit of TFA—or in its interests. Thi9s applies whether we link or not; indeed, not linking to the previous TFAs, and just baldly stating that they've all been called GD is arguably even more misleading. But we shouldn't be doing either, so that's a meta point. ——Serial 12:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the GD blurb. Oppose the previous TFA list, which is too obvious. The blurb is excellent, and needs to be read to notice what's going on: a nice touch of subtlety. One of WP's better 1st April jokes. Bazza (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support TFA, but oppose including the recently featured section per Sandy and SerialNo. This seems like a great laugh, and the sort of sensible thing to do on April Fool's Day that is sometimes lacking. But the joke won't be diminished if we have the previous days' entries as usual (in fact, it will be augmented, because the TFA will look like a bona fide one). And being on the "recently featured" list it is an integral part of those days' TFAs.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, but not SerialYes...?  :) ——Serial 15:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess not, but I think there's some SerialMaybe  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose including the recently featured section per Amakuru but still support the TFA.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to withhold my comment until April 1st, at which time I'll explode with incandescent fury and apoplectic rhetoric, showcasing my hatred of April Fool's Day and demanding that Wikipedia stop posting this juvenile rubbish on the main page. :-) In all seriousness, support TFA only. Very clever this time around.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If we can display more than 3 articles under "recently featured", why not just do 6 on April 1: the three real recent articles followed by "Groundhog Day" three times? That both keeps the real articles linked and keeps the impact of the joke confined to April 1. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Anomie: I'd support that, although I think we'd want to do four (three real and one groundhog day) rather than six to keep it subtle and avoid overflowing the allotted space. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support both the blurb and the "previously featured" proposal. Unlike some previous April Fool's Day proposals, this one is funny, clever, and isn't just juvenile. This is the standard we should aim for for April Fool's jokes. It would be funnier still if the TFA for the day after was also Groundhog Day (film), but I understand why that won't happen! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and previously featured, with makeup days for the recently featured articles. Another benefit is that the repetition in the previously featured section makes the joke more obvious; when I eyeballed the blurb it took me a while to realize that the text was repeated. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Close needed—we don't have much time to spare at this point. Could someone please assess the consensus here and give this a close? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
    • List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
    • Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs
  • WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.
  • Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.
  • Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Two snakes wound around a staff are often a symbol of medicine"

Was reading the list of upcoming TFAs and saw the caduceus used for Dreamsnake with that caption. Just for the record, the caduceus is not a traditional symbol of medicine (indeed it's a traditional symbol of commerce) and is only used as such in the United States. The "snake around a rod that symbolizes medicine" and is globally recognizable is the Rod of Asclepius -- can this be switched out? Vaticidalprophet 12:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I think that's an important point about the use of the symbol, but does not really contradict it's mention in the text, I think. The Jones 1983 source, admittedly written from a US-centric POV, explicitly mentions the caduceus as the modern symbol of medicine; and the Wood source also focuses on the caduceus, rather than the Rod of Asclepius. If someone wishes to pull the TFA image, I have no objections, but the content in the article reflects what the available sources say. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes TFA trial

A recent village pump discussion has been closed with consensus to begin a trial of applying automatic pending changes protection to TFAs while they are on the Main Page. The closer indicated that a brief follow-up discussion should be had here to discuss the technical implementation and any changes to the editnotice that we may want to add. The closer also indicated that 1 month should be the default length of the trial, but that can be tweaked here if needed.

As far as technical implementation goes, I think the most natural solution is submitting a request to WP:BOTR to request a bot to automate this task. In the meantime, this could also be done manually everyday if any admin would like to volunteer for that. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really watching WP:BOTR these days, but I can have User:AnomieBOT III do it. It's already an adminbot which may make it somewhat easier to get going. Anomie⚔ 11:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Anomie, sorry for the delay in responding. Since there seems to be no opposition, I think having AnomieBOT III do a 1-month trial of this would be awesome, if it's no trouble to you. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mz7: BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 13:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sensitive TFA images

As we know, Wikipedia is not censored. I am absolutely of agreement that at an article that covers a given topic, there should be content available to illustrate that topic regardless of its potential to offend.

However, just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean that potentially sensitive content can or should always be permissible to place anywhere on the site, without warning. As per the principle of least astonishment, a reader probably should not come across provocative material unless they are specifically looking for it; "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read."

Given this, I feel that it might not be wise to use images that could potentially be regarded as graphic to illustrate the rotating featured article blurb on English Wikipedia's main page. The current featured article, Buruli ulcer, is an example of this. While I am not personally particularly bothered by gore, I think we should be conscious of the fact that many people are, and that through this selection, anyone who visits the main page of Wikipedia - one of the world's most trafficked websites - will immediately see explicit images of open wounds without warning, including younger readers and those with sensitive phobias.

While I do not wish to censor wikipedia, I think it would be a reasonable courtesy, and in accordance with the guideline of not unwarrantedly shocking or surprising readers, to not use explicit or broadly shocking images to illustrate topics on the main page, where readers might not be expecting to encounter said topics. Articles such as these could of course still be featured, but less provocative images could be substituted for the purpose of the main page.

Thoughts? BlackholeWA (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, a whole ton of editors have looked at that image and have not seen a problem (else it would not have been put up at TFA). I am still not seeing the problem. I don’t know how we can guess what some people will find sensitive until ... we hear that what some people see as commonplace, others find shocking. Who knew? The idea that anyone meant to be provocative or explicit or unwarrantedly shocking or un-reasonably courteous is an assumption that does not fit the circumstance. I understood the offense at this, but I don’t understand how a routine medical image like a Buruli ulcer is shocking, and I am certain the author of the article intended no discourtesy nor did the TFA Coord who ran it. The wound is painless and lots of people walk around with it; how do we get from there to gore? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose this suggestion mostly because it contains no proposal, and is instead little more than an implication that either the article writers or the TFA Coords unwarrantedly and discourteously and insensitively (intentionally?) chose an image that, as was later revealed, offended some. As others have pointed out below, this is subjective and was not knowable in advance. There is nothing in this proposal to support, because it basically only casts aspersions on those who unwittingly find themselves in this kerfuffle, and provides no crystal ball for knowing what is sensitive to some while commonplace to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I support the proposal, and I thank BlackholeWA for taking the time to write thoughtfully and modestly. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I support the proposal. -- MF14 06:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest, without commenting on the proposal itself, that a useful means of proceeding is for people to review main page images before the big day. The image in question was scheduled over a month ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Nah, that really doesn't work. People aren't going to dig round and review what is being scheduled, they're simply clicking on the main page and getting a surprise. No readers and almost no editors are commensurate with the arcane machinations of how and where things are selected and queued for the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Conceded, but it costs nothing to ask, there's no downside, and potential benefits from asking.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. As someone who disables images in my browser or casts a squint whenever I navigate to medical articles on Wikipedia (I know it's lame, but it is what it is... I can't help it), I would prefer to have the option. Having these images on the front page doesn't really give me the option. I'm also sympathetic to the younger readers argument. On a scale of human centipede to puppies, we do draw a line, and the argument is simply to shift that line a little, if only out of empathy for other readers. Brycehughes (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "images that could potentially be regarded as graphic" includes almost all images. (It is also useful to remember that the world didn't end when the German Wikipedia featured a close-up of a human vulva on its main page when de:Vulva was the TFA back in 2010). —Kusma (t·c) 09:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose See, I think that most people will agree that this image is quite graphic/squicky. However, in this specific case we aren't talking about a case of us putting squick on the main page solely out of shock value or because we feel like having fun at the expense of our readers. This image's an actual photo of an actual medical condition that looks like this and judging by the article the "looks" are medically significant, as patients often suffer from social stigma when they have a Buruli's ulcer. If there are concerns that schools will block us if we run this sort of image - if memory serves an issue with previous instances of graphic images -, running it on a weekend might mitigate the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sure who decides what is and what is not "sensitive". I don't get offended by anything really apart from cruelty to animals and humans. Others get offended by body parts which I personally find incredibly odd. YMMV which is why we can't do this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "could potentially be regarded as graphic" part of the argument is a questionable one that gives rise very quickly to a slippery slope. Part of the reason that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED is because it is impossible to determine which content is or is not "safe" not just for American English users of Wikipedia, but for any demographic group spread out across the entire Internet-using world. It also is a passive insult to someone who works hard to bring up an article to featured status, then to be told that yes, while the article is nice, that the images therein are not appropriate for the main page (not the front page, the main page) of an online encyclopedia. In addition, contrary to WP:GRATUITOUS, this is not offensive content for the sake of offensive content. This image very clearly has a direct connection to the content of the article. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh and incidentally, to say "I do not wish to censor Wikipedia" then call for censoring Wikipedia based on a subjective standard really casts your argument as being rather imprecise.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as subjective. In any case, WP:CENSORMAIN already exists for the purpose the nom states, and the current image, at least, clearly does not apply. ——Serial 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree This does not seem like a new proposal, but rather a reminder for editors to follow the already-established principle of least astonishment, as articulated above and here. I don't think the average reader expects up-close images of open sores on the main page, and there are more appropriate ways to present the content. Fredlesaltique (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support the proposal "to not use explicit or broadly shocking images to illustrate topics on the main page". The supports above seem to be also supporting an assumption that the main page images for Buruli ulcer cross this threshold. As they don't get anywhere near what I would consider "explicit or broadly shocking" I oppose withdrawing or changing them, or doing anything other than accepting that they are appropriate images of a distressing condition. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I respect the support arguments here, but this is so poorly defined as to raise massive slippery slope concerns. (As regards school censorship, I'm young enough that I was in the grade-level education system in the Wikipedia Era, and my consistent experience is schools block Commons already.) Vaticidalprophet 14:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Question given that millions of people were seemingly shocked to the core during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy over a nipple, are we going to have to vote on the potential offence caused by each TFA? I watch a lot of TV from the other side of the world, where there is a sensitivity for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in terms of the depiction of dead people. Whose sensitivities are covering here? If "think of the children" then why not "think of the Torres Strait Islanders"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Being a Kiwi, I'm more partial to the sensitivities of the Te Moana-o-Raukawa Strait Islanders.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, quite right too. But what makes a "sensitivity" towards the squeamish more important than a "sensitivity" towards the Torres/Cook Strait Islanders? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was not aware of WP:CENSORMAIN, which I concur with. I feel like therefore that this sort of situation is already precedented, between that and least astonishment. Some people are saying that what is offensive is subjective; while this is of course true, I think the argument to a slippery slope is disingenuous. We do not need to decide beforehand what is "too offensive", but as with anything the matter can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As for the previous image (which has now been swapped out on the main page), I don't think it is absurd to note it's broad potential to distress some viewers. Remember that some people will faint at the mere sight of blood - I think that images of large, open wounds, therefore, are straightforwardly sensitive images, and this could be acknowledged without worrying about other images that are less immediately graphic. Moreover, the original article in question already had a NOTCENSORED banner on its talk page, so clearly editors were already aware of the potential for the images to be seen as graphic. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    It would be more accurate to say editors were aware of the tendency of other editors to complain about anything and everything, not being aware of policy, guideline, or anything else. No idea, still, how some define "graphic" in relation to others. I accept that some editors find that image problematic, hence no problem changing it, although I fail to see that a case has been made for some of the kinds of insinuations and outrage expressed on this talk page and others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the potential for a slippery slope here. Sensitivity is subjective; today's "sensitive" images portray a medical condition, and I do not find them problematic. The images (and text) are scheduled weeks ahead of their appearance and any editor can already object to them on a case-by-case basis, so I do not agree with a blanket proposal. April's queue is already up, if anyone wants to discuss potentially problematic articles/imagery. Also, it's regretful that with medical FAs being so rare, the second to last medical FA that we have to run has become this shrouded in controversy. I hope the main author does not become discouraged by this. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    For all those who like to complain on the mainpage, I wonder how many have WP:TFAA bookmarked, and check it before the beginning of each month. (Because I know, and appreciate, quite a few editors who do, thank you to them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    The March 26 image is quite an assault on the senses too. Crispclear (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    I've seen worse :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers - I take it by the way, that the lead page pic has now been changed (it's very bland) & we are talking about the article's lead multiple image. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yep :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I think this could quickly become a slippy slope. Sensitivity is very subjective. I have sympathy for both sides of the Buruli ulcer TFA as I can understand the importance of the original image but I understand and somewhat agree with the principle of least astonishment argument. I think this was brought up in the discussion on the main page's talk page, but would it be possible to lower the resolution of or pixelate potentially sensitive images so it is only shown when the cursor is on it? I have noticed some complaints about this TFA image on Twitter, and the main take-away that I have found (and I have noticed this in other TFA-related tweets) is that a lot of people do not understand what a featured article is. I have seen a lot of people think that a featured article is just a random Wikipedia featured on the front page and they are not aware of the process behind it. I know that is a different discussion, but I found it to be somewhat related. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This conversation occurs each time we have some image of this sort for the TFA. I submit that having an informal discussion at this talk page (WT:TFA) is not going to change how these images are selected at all whatsoever (see definition of insanity), and that an RFC at WP:VPPOL/WP:VPPRO may be more conclusive for guidance to the blurb writers, article writers, and the TFA coordinators. --Izno (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don’t see that there is anything left to be solved via an RFC. First, because how can this “sensitive” issue be defined? It can’t, because we all differ, and no one knew this was sensitive ... until it was. Second, because certainly the TFA Coords and medical writers will now be hyperaware and cautious as a result of this matter. But third, and most significantly, I don’t see why anyone would bother now trying to bring medical content to Featured status; start to finish, this wasn’t a grand example for why FA status should be valued over GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    I am not really interested in answering the question of definition; that would be the point of the RFC. As for the TFA coords, clearly not. As noted, this is not the first time an image has missed their review (it is rare, but it does happen). I am not interested in making sure the coords are aware particularly; evidence from these cases indicate the FAC/TFA community as a whole needs a minor tweak in how they approach the question of what image to attend a blurb (it's not just medical editors). OTOH, it might be that the minor adjustment ends up instead being a major adjustment the other direction, such that we establish general policy indicating that we aren't going to hear complaints of this sort. An RFA would make that clear without the continuing acrimony each time this issue does does occur.
    I do not think this is an event that will cause mass disinterest in featured status. It is ultimately a fender bender in the existence of Wikipedia. Izno (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I though the consensus was rather clear here, but Herostratus has decided to filibuster on my talk page. So, the discussion is back open for anyone else to close whenever they see fit. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    I applaud your patience :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's obviously some extent of what shouldn't be on the main page, such as pornographic images or extreme violence and such, but saying we can't have a picture of an ulcer on the main page to illustrate an article about an ulcer seems to be overkill. Yes, its yucky, but so is the article subject. And how are we going to define "sensitive"? Looking at the April TFA queue, we've got images scheduled of the gates of Auschwitz, a woodcut of multiple people being crucified, and a Van Dorn battle flag, all of which could conceivably be found sensitive by some. I think WP:CENSORMAIN is good and reasonable advice, and we shouldn't be trying to determine what is potentially sensitive, as almost any subject could be sensitive to somebody. Hog Farm Talk 21:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The replacement of a factual and clear image of this horrible disease on the front page with a confusing image was a bad decision. I agree that TFA images shouldn't be unnecessarily shocking and common sense should be applied when selecting and reviewing them, but we do have FAs on horrible topics such as this. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going to re-close this in my capacity as an uninvolved editor; but let's not be reckless here. Anyway, since I'm not closing this, might as well give my 2 cents: Oppose Per WP:NOTCENSORED and the nice examples of how lots of things could be shocking given by Hog Farm. What is "shocking" is open to debate and is too broad a concept. And not everything in the garden of life is rosy, so I see little reason why we would want to avoid depicting difficult issues in the name of not being shocking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Start an RfC with clearer language. I am a huge fan of NOTCENSORED but the front page shouldn't be a place where pictures likely to cause distress should be unless there is no other reasonable option. I think a simple sentence about the front page taking its high degree of visibility when considering graphic content would be wise. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The entire point of featuring an article is to give exposure to it, warts and all. If this is sometimes surprising or shocking then this is the nature of our encyclopedia and the world that it covers. The number of people who complained about this was tiny compared to the many thousands or millions that didn't. There's no evidence that any harm was done and so there's no significant problem to fix. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support some variant of this, even it's just a one-line note as Hobit suggests. This proposal is already de facto in place, given that we never post sexual organs or grotesquely violent images on the main page. It gets a bit tiresome when that de facto standard is constantly challenged with cries of WP:NOTCENSORED, so let's see it written down. Obviously this is a somewhat subjective measure, as cases like Buruli ulcer will always split opinion, however we phrase it, but having the basic principle in black and white would be a positive development.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Which person or persons am I to let decide for me what I should be offended by? --Jayron32 15:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Well but the question on the table is not "will this image offend or trigger Jayron" but "will this image offend or trigger some non-negligible portion of the readership". Different questions! Also sorry, but you are letting any publication you read to decide for you what you will be offended by. If you read Time magazine or anything else, you may be assured that they have had discussions about what material they are going to publish that week, and if the potential offensiveness of a given piece of material was germane, they discussed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Coordinator comment Let's say ... I was minded to re-run this TFA, which is eligible for re-run, with the same image? Would that violate the proposed policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    That one seems to have been considerably more controversial than File:Buruli ulcers grouped image.png (see Talk:Main Page/Archive 170#Featured Article image), so one would have expected there to have been some advance discussion, as there was, because of the racial issue and a real dead person (which is not the same as a wound). How would anyone know or define in advance that the Buruli ulcer image was sensitive? I would know in advance that a decapitation is sensitive; where is the line drawn? (And I still don't know what the proposal above actually is, other than asking the Coords to gaze in to a crystal ball.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support What OP is saying. It's not a formal request for action, it's an invitation to discussion. This is a topic that has often been the subject of lively discussion and will be again and that's all to the good I think. So, basically what OP wrote was

It might not be wise to use images that could potentially be regarded as graphic to illustrate the rotating featured article blurb on English Wikipedia's main page. ... I think we should be conscious of the fact that many people areI feel that it might not be wise to use images that could potentially be regarded as graphic to illustrate the rotating featured article blurb on English Wikipedia's main page. The current featured article, Buruli ulcer, is an example of this. While I am not personally particularly bothered by gore, I think we should be conscious of the fact that many people are, and that through this selection, anyone who visits the main page of Wikipedia - one of the world's most trafficked websites - will immediately see explicit images of open wounds without warning, including younger readers and those with sensitive phobias. , and that through this selection, anyone who visits the main page of Wikipedia - one of the world's most trafficked websites - will immediately see explicit images of open wounds without warning, including younger readers and those with sensitive phobias.

I'm kind of appalled at the number of editors who read this, thought for a minute, and said "nah". Oh well.
One thing I think would be a good idea would be to remove the term "censor" from these conversations. It's a highly fraught and inflammatory term that is not conducive to thoughtful discussion and can hardly be used without insult.
It's inaccurate for starters. Only external entities, usually those with state powers, can censor a publication. What we're talking about here is our own editorial judgement. (I get that the term is being used more loosely here. I'm saying it shouldn't be.)
And its inflammatory. Since censorship -- real state censorship -- is broadly understood to be bad, you're wrapping yourself in the mantle of Voltaire or whatever when what we're really talking about here is what we do or don't want to publish in our magazine (the Main Page is basically a mini-magazine). Its like "I think we should not censor this image, here. Do you agree, or are you a Cossack?"
I'm confident that at Time magazine -- or, basically, any other publication in the world except us -- when the editors are discussing whether it'd be appropriate to publish a particular image or not, they're not throwing around terms like "censor". Functional organizations don't roll that way.
As to the question at hand, a lot of the arguments opposing OP's notion are kind of jejune I think. Of course it's a complicated analog world and there are many things that are hard to know with certainty, But we actually can make informed guesses about what is or is not going to trigger a non-negligable percentage of readers. This is what our intelligence, experience, empathy, common sense, and knowledge of the broad world is for. Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Well said, Herostratus. I pretty much agree with all your points. The thrust of the Oppose argument seems to be that it's somehow outlandish and perverse to have a discussion about what we do and don't put on the main page. Yet we're already out on a limb with our image policy as it is. Mainstream encyclopedias such as Britannica don't include photographs of penises for example. I'm not suggesting we revisit that issue, but when it comes to our most visited page this is absolutely a timely and relevant discussion if we want the project to be taken seriously by the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Herostratus, and I pretty much disagree with several of your points. If these arguments were so jejune, why did not a single editor notice the (alleged) issue with the Buruli ulcer images before a very small minority complained at ERRORS, on one of the most viewed TFAs for the month of March? And, as an additional example of how subjective the criteria is, just below the cries of "think of the children" at Talk:Mainpage regarding a medical image, are nonchalant to zero references to the fact that today's mainpage features "Cake and Cunnilingus". So I guess cunnilingus, fellatio and the like are fine for "the children", but medical images are not. [5] Perfect demonstration that what one takes offense to is subjective. On the other hand, could also be an indication that no one even reads DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
And now we’ve got Ate my balls on the mainpage, with narry a complaint.[6] Lots of irony or hypocrisy in this whole matter, not sure which. That, and Cake with cunnilingus, are certainly encyclopedic, and helpful for the delicate children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh hi User:SandyGeorgia. Why are you bothering to engage when you apparently don't believe that discussing the matter should even be permitted.
So anyway, I don't watch the Main Page, and I seldom even look at it. I don't worry about it because I have other interests and assume that skilled, erudite, experienced, savvy, and sensitive Wikipedians who put to the forefront the wellbeing of the project and the community of readers look after it. Pretty sure a lot of Wikipedians are of the same mind. Sure hope I'm right!
I don't know what cake and cunnilingus is. Sounds bad, but I don't have the time energy or interest to go look at it right now. Ate my balls sounds crude and stupid, but probably OK for the Main Page. Haven't looked at that either. But just because we're too busy to look after all this doesn't mean we're giving it a thumbs up.
And I mean to mock people for thinking of the wellbeing of children is... well, hmmm. That's... there's a pretty big gap there between us, you and I, is all. I'm not sure how to communicate across a gap that wide. But yeah, I do think that the interests of children are important yes. They are one class of our stakeholders, numerous and imporant and particularly vulnerable in some aspects. Reasonable people can disagree about what those interests are, and how to best serve those interests. Reasonable people can't disagree about whether those interests exist or should be served.
Sorry, but "what one takes offense to is subjective" is kind of a definitive example of, literally, sophomoric thinking. I understand that there's a phrase that most of us go through -- stereotypically as sophomores, hence the term I suppose -- where we're transitioning from our inculcated value systems and learning to develop our own adult ones. It's an exciting time! It's great to have these conversations in the sophomore dorms where you question everything, you know, like "Whoaaa wait, how can you prove that Hitler was bad, right? It's just like, like... [phhhht]... somebody's, like, opinion, you know? It's, like, just subjective!" It's fine. Been there myself. It's an important stage of moral growth.
It's just... this is a really important website. The Main Page part needs to be overseen by grownups. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
And apparently that means grownups who do more than look at the pretty (or not) pictures, and actually read the articles at DYK. We could probably have a more “skilled, erudite, experienced, savvy and sensitive” discussion if more people engaging the images did that. (Re, “don’t believe ... discussing the matter should even be discussed”, re-read the previous sentence.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I do feel a little frustrated at the rage that seems to emerge here when all I suggested is that it might be worth applying discretionary editorial scrutiny to the main page. I do not wish any content to be censored or removed from Wikipedia as a whole, and rather just suggested that we might, as a courtesy, want to prevent graphic images from showing up on the main page unprompted. I'm not even necessarily opposed to them being there entirely - maybe certain images could initially be hidden in an expandable box with a warning if deemed necessary. I didn't mean to offend editors' libertarian sensibilities when it came to this - but I do think many kneejerk reactions are overly harsh considering that I am not arguing for the censorship of anything. The principle of least surprise and editor courtesy to the general public should be remembered, and also, these are not even new, unprecedented ideas; they are arguably already covered by existing policy and essays. Why, then, do people seem to be taking such person offense at the idea that these matters might be worth more discussion? This is not a slippery slope to the censoring of all images on Wikipedia. Most of the objections are along the lines of, "when do we know when to stop/what is shocking? It's impossible to have a policy for this". Well, it seems common sense to me that the "policy" such as their might be one should be a case-by-case consideration of what might be inappropriate for the main page, with courtesy readers kept in mind. As with any decision on Wikipedia the outcome would result from public discussion rather than a blanket policy necessarily. People should not let their dislike of anything that might even tangentially resemble some form of censorship (although this would not even be that) to override editorial responsibility to present a site that will not unnecessarily shock or WP:SURPRISE readers merely for the sake of an abstract libertarian principle. It is not unnecessary "think of the children" handwringing to want this sort of thing at least discussed before an image is posted, and keeping in mind that hiding or swapping out an image does nothing to harm coverage of the topic when that image would still be at the page link anyway. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I sympathize with your frustration, and think that a better discussion could have been had, and at a better time (not in the midst of a fairly typical mainpage kerfuffle). You started a discussion using words like ‘’provocative, sensitive, shocking, graphic’’ in ways that imply that someone (TFA Coords, FAC, article author ?) somewhat intentionally ran an image that was all those things. In fact, that the image may have been considered sensitive by a small handful of editors (who apparently aren’t bothered by cunnilingus or eat my balls) was only evident after the fact, and your “proposal” offers nothing concrete that might be changed in any of the processes, or provides any criteria to evaluate against that anyone could have predicted. Buruli ulcer was among the highest viewed TFAs in March (waiting for the full data to be generated, so that is preliminary), and no one saw this problem coming, and very few complained. So it is not clear what process you want changed to help people see in advance that a medical image could be problematic, while cunnilingus and eat my balls apparently aren’t. So, all we end up with here is a vague implication that the TFA Coords aren’t doing their job, while the DYK people can put crude sexual humor on the main page, which ends up being somewhat insulting to all the people who did not intentionally run a “shocking, graphic, insensitive” image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but not absolutely. If there is an alternative image available that equally well illustrates the article, then I would prefer using that. This was not the case with the ulcer. I support offending or upsetting some people if there is a good reason to do so. In the ulcer case the educational benefits of showing the image were considerable, and for me outweighed these costs. I don't see any rigorous way to judge the cost (i.e. the seriousness of the offence and to how many people), but the number of complaints will obviously tend to overrepresent the problem (those not offended don't comment). In this case I found it distasteful that people were complaining about getting a glance of these ulcers when there are people in the world suffering from the disease who might benefit from the attention and understanding that the image generated. Snowflakes! I too am squeamish about some silly things, but I don't think that the world, or Wikipedia, owes me a duty to protect me from encountering them. I can't imagine that serious harm is ever done to anyone by their glancing at a thumbnail on the main page. Jmchutchinson (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support proposal that essentially boils down to "use common sense." Wikipedia is the largest reference work in the history of the world. It is not responsible for a website of our size to ruffle feathers, even if, in theory, we can. To any editor pointing out "what about x that was on the Main Page?"... yes, whatever instance you're thinking of was likely a bad idea and is why this proposal should be considered. Several editors have made great arguments above, and WP:CENSORMAIN sums up pretty much everything I could think to say on the topic. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia's legitimacy and global usefulness depends on its ability to represent itself as a serious enterprise. This is not furthered by gratuitous display of sensitive content. Discretion is the hallmark of seriousness and it is appropriately within Wikipedia's non-censoring discretion to withhold sensitive images from the main page, where their primary contribution would only be shock value, rather than in an article, where there is context. Ergo Sum 15:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski "anarcho-primitivist"

Ted Kaczynski has disclaimed "anarcho-primitivism" as a description of his politics, as previously discussed at the article talk page. [7] He considers it a left-utopian position based on academic rather than practical understanding of primitive life. The blurb should instead refer and link to green anarchism, as the article does. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Errors in the summary of the featured article (and I see there's already a discussion there about this issue). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 tentative lineup

This is the tentative lineup for June 2021. Comments welcome. It is subject to change if additional TFA/R are filed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Treaty of Lutatius (Gog the Mild) 2020 Ancient history. TFA/R
2. Bring Us Together (Wehwalt) 2010 Politics. Free choice (RERUN 2/18/2011)
3. Warner Bros. Movie World (CR4ZE) 2020 Geography TFA/R
4. Watching the River Flow (Moisejp) 2017 Music Request on my talk
5. Johnny Owen (Kosack) 2021 Sports Free choice
6. Laguna del Maule (volcano) (Jo-Jo Eumerus) 2020. Geology. Free choice.
7. Interstate 69 in Michigan (Imzadi 1979) 2015 Roads Free Choice
8. SS Minnesotan (Bellhalla) 2009 Warfare/Ships Free choice
9. Emma Louisa Turner (Jimfbleak) 2020 Biology Free choice (birthday)
10. Hurricane Fay (2014) (Juliancolton) 2015 Weather Free choice
11. Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989) (Amakuru, The Rambling Man) 2021 Sports. Free choice. (Start of European Football Championship)
12. Beaver (LittleJerry) 2021 Biology Free choice
13. Barren Island (Brooklyn) (epicgenius) 2020. Geography. Free choice.
14. Enthiran (Ssven2) 2015. Film. Free choice.
15. Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) (Nick-D) 2010. Warfare. Free choice.
16. Podokesaurus (FunkMonk) 2021 Biology Free choice
17, Antiochus X Eusebes (Attar-Aram syria) 2020 History Free choice
18., CM Punk (Davnel03) 2007 FAR kept 2020 Entertainment Free choice
19. Rock Martin (Jimfbleak) 2010. Biology. Free choice.
20. Pisco sour (MarshalN20) 2013 Food & Drink Free choice (RERUN 7/15/2013)
21. The Thankful Poor (GeneralPoxter) 2021. Art. TFA/R
22. Discovery of Nuclear Fission (Hawkeye7) Science Free choice
23. Sonic the Hedgehog (TheJoebro64) 2020. Video Games. TFA/R
24. New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollar (Wehwalt) 2019 Numismatics. TFA/R/P (anniversary of ceremonial presentation discussed in article)
25. Grevillea juniperina (Cas Liber) 2015. Biology. Free choice
26. Shojo Beat (AnmaFinotera) 2009. Literature. Free choice.
27. History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II (Buidhe) 2020 History. Free choice.
28. Phillip Davey (Peacemaker67) 2018. Warfare. TFA/R/P
29. Berlin to Kitchener name change (Tkbrett) 2021. History. Free choice (anniversary of conclusion of second referendum)
30. All About That Bass (MaranoFan) 2021 Music TFA/R/P

Removed a space behind my name. I'll probably need to check for updates on Laguna del Maule; normally I do update each article I've written or expanded during Christmas holidays so before Christmas an article is slightly out of date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like there are any major new sources so I won't change my update schedule here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Just curious why "Watching the River Flow" was given priority for the specific date (June 3) over Warner Bros. Movie World. A 50th anniversary would normally be considered more significant than a 30th, but the TFA blurb for the Dylan song doesn't mention the date while Movie World's does. Not to mention that the park is actually holding anniversary celebrations to mark the occasion. If the date for the song was superfluous to the blurb, I wonder, could it be swapped to the 2nd and Movie World given the 3rd instead? — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, just saw that Moisejp already changed the blurb to reflect the date. My next line of argument would be that there has never been a theme park TFA before, while WP:SONG TFA's are more common, so there's that... — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • CR4ZE, I did feel a bit bad that the Warner Bros. Movie World article won't be on the TFA for its exact 30th anniversary, but the truth of the matter is that both articles are very deserving, there's only spot on June 3, and one of them had to be left out. I was going to graciously accept the decision if "Watching the River Flow" wasn't picked, and I'll still graciously accept if Wehwalt decides to move things around and WTRF loses the spot. I a little bit don't understand your stance of aggressively trying to present small reasons to give the Warner Bros. Movie World article the edge when both articles are pretty much equally deserving. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A 50th anniversary is more significant than a 30th, and the Warner Bros. also has an opening ceremony to use as an anniversary basis. Also, what with time zones, it should still be on the main page for part of the 3rd local time. It's a close call but I felt it worked better than the other way around.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The verdict is reasonable so I'll concede. Apologies if this came off aggressive as it was genuinely written to elicit spirited yet lighthearted debate. I had this TFA date on the radar for over a year, rewriting from scratch, going from C up to FA and fighting to attract review at GAN and FAC. Your nomination was later to the party so naturally I was disappointed it got precedence. Having said that, the idea to run Movie World on the 2nd with some carryover in different time zones is a fair compromise. Congratulations on your TFA and I hope it attracts renewed interest in Dylan's long legacy. All the best. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to see the Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) article scheduled for the 15th. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Could the Interstate 69 article be scheduled for 6/9? I think that would be nice. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought that would be cute too but the Emma Turner article, her birthday was June 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Crediting users in the TFA?

I searched the archives but I couldn't find an answer, so curious to see if there was a previous consensus or something. Has it been discussed crediting users for a TFA article? Similar to the "restored by" portion at WP:TFP? Just curious. Panini!🥪 11:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be difficult/impractical as many FAs are written by more than one person. And reviewers also implicitly count. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Jo-Jo. Most FAs have many contributors over the years, including reviewers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/Archive_14&oldid=1137401499"