Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Today's featured article

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PAVA11 (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 10 December 2009 (→December 12: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.
Write the blurb.
Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

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

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from January 2 to February 1.

Date Article Points Notes Supports† Opposes†
December 12 Planescape: Torment 0 10th anniversary of release Next to be replaced. 15 2
December 17 Homer Simpson 3 20th anniversary of premiere 15 1
December 24 or 25 Christmas 1994 nor'easter 1–2 Anniversary. 1 0
December 27 Prairie Avenue 3 30th anniversary of Chicago Landmark status 8 1
January 1 Ceres (dwarf planet) 3 Anniversary of discovery 8 5

† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers.

Requests

December 12

Caucasian male sitting in front of a laptop; he has brown hair, a black shirt, and a red lanyard

Planescape: Torment is a computer role-playing game (RPG) developed for Windows by Black Isle Studios (lead designer Chris Avellone pictured) and released on December 12, 1999 by Interplay Entertainment. It takes place in Planescape, a Dungeons & Dragons fantasy campaign setting. The game is primarily story-driven; combat is given less prominence than in most contemporary RPGs. The protagonist is an immortal who has lost his name, lived many lives, and forgotten them. The game focuses on his journey to reclaim his memories of these previous lives. The game was not a significant commercial success but received widespread critical praise for its immersive dialog, the dark Planescape setting, and the protagonist's unique persona, which shirked many characteristics of traditional RPGs. It was considered by many video game journalists to be the best RPG of 1999, and as a cult classic continues to receive attention long after its release. (more...)

2 pts for 10-year anniversary of release. I know this doesn't give it any points, but 12/12/09 is my birthday so I'd consider a support vote to be a nice present!  :)

I know Grim Fandango ran on November 12, and I'm hoping that doesn't count against the "within one month" - it seems to me that this is just outside of the one-month line. Plus, this is a 10-year anniversary, so not exactly arbitrary.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support An anniversary of ten years is pretty significant and the game is well regarded still, even after all this time. This article nudged me to check out the game, so I'm looking favorably to this appearing on the front page. Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's what I was hoping for. :) BOZ (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be three points? I'm second on the contributor list tool (linked to somewhere above), and I haven't had an article on the main page before. (also, support if that's allowed from the article's major editor[s]). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No article that you've been a major contributor to has appeared main page, regardless of whether you've asked for it to be?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; the only one was a DYK, but it says that the point only counts past TFAs. Really, this is the only feature article that I can say I am a "major" contributor to at all (the other being Ravenloft (module), but it was completely rewritten before it got promoted, and it hasn't been on the main page either). Other FA contributions have been minor tweaks and the like, and I certainly don't feel like a major contributor to any others. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've allowed similar cases lots of times. Up to three points, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Just in case, it should be pointed out that Grim Fandango was originally picked by Raul for Nov 11 sometime the week before, but moved on the 10th to Nov 12th (as I think it was caught that the 11th was Veteran's Day and a more appropriate article was there. As BOZ states, I believe this is still outside the 1 month boundary for that, so no point subtractions for that issue.) --MASEM (t) 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an article on the game that broke many stereotypical molds.—RJH (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for ten-year anniversary. --candle•wicke 20:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Happy birthday. :P GlassCobra 20:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This game had the best writing in a video game I've ever played, I remember when it came out 10 years ago. Cult classic. JACOPLANE • 2009-11-18 21:17
  • Oppose with all due respect for the article and the editors, I just think we have far too many video games on TFA. Smallbones (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to disagree with this, only considering how other VG articles have reached TFA. I have had several featured video game articles that I was a/the major contributor on selected by Raul to be on the front page within the last two years, 5 within the last 6 months, including 2 within a 30 day period. (This is Raul's pick, no TFA here). I'm pretty sure Raul is aware that VG is an over-represented topic at TFA but these still are selected. That may say something to the pool of available FAs that there remain to pull from. As best as I can recall, this is the first major TFA request for a VG front page in a long time, since we (the VG project) are well aware of that stigma, and thus do tend to coordinate internally to avoid making this excessive. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Dan Castellaneta
Dan Castellaneta
Homer Simpson, voiced by Dan Castellaneta (pictured), is a fictional main character in the animated television series The Simpsons. Homer is the boorish father of the Simpson family. With his wife, Marge, he has three children: Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. As the family's provider, he works at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Homer embodies several American working class stereotypes: he is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy and ignorant; however, he is also fiercely devoted to his family. Homer was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening and first appeared on television, along with the rest of his family, in The Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987. After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family got their own series on Fox, which debuted December 17, 1989. Homer is one of the most influential fictional characters on television. He was ranked the second greatest cartoon character by TV Guide and was voted the greatest television character of all-time by Channel 4 viewers. Castellaneta has won four Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance and a special achievement Annie Award for voicing Homer. In 2000, Homer, along with the rest of his family, was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (more...)

The article was promoted over a year ago, that's one point. It commemorates a 20th anniversary, 2 points. So, at least three. Depending on your definition of similar article, it might gain another point.

By December 17, it will have been over 3 months since a similar article (I'm going by fictional character articles, so the most recent would be Khan Noonien Singh, which ran on September 4; a television-related article, North by North Quahog, went on September 21).

December 17 marks the 20th anniversary of the show's first episode, and Simpsons debut of the character. Another possibility for a TFA on that day is Bart Simpson. The Simpsons is a FA, but it previously ran on December 17, 2007 (so yes, this would be the second case of a Simpsons article running on that day, but does it really matter?). Now, if this day is rejected, another possibility is January 14, the airdate of "Bart the Genius" (which Fox considers the first "official" episode), in which case I would probably request Bart's page.

Yes, there have been four previous TFAs for The Simpsons - Homer's Phobiaon July 27, 2007; The Simpsons on December 17, 2007; Troy McClure on May 28, 2008; and Treehouse of Horror (series) on October 31, 2008. So, it's been over a year since a request was made. -- Scorpion0422 19:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the image irritating. If it was The Simpsons it would work but when I see Homer Simpson and the face of this guy pops up - there's a disconnect there, even if he voices him. Hekerui (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much more "irritating" a) if there was no image and b) if it was on a The Simpsons TFA, as he wouldn't be the most relevant picture. An image of Castellaneta is perfectly relevant, an image of Homer is not allowed as it is fair-use. Gran2 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very unlike there is a free use image of Homer Simpson anywhere. BUC (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the fair-use rules, I just think Homer is such a well known figure that people will go "huh?" like me upon seeing this. Despite the man being important to Homer as such. Just my view. Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three points, North by North Quahog is in my opinion similar. While the anniversary is of the show, of course it is also the 20th anniversary of Homer Simpson's first appearance on the show (doh!). Can we get a photograph of some Simpsons merch that might be free use? Or the Hollywood star or the Homer as crop circle?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the fair use policies is that any image of a copyrighted character, either on a t-shirt or whatever, cannot be counted as free-use. This is in the article and is in the Commons as free-use: File:Homer Simpson in Cerne Abbans.JPG but not only is it a fairly small image I think it should actually be classified as fair use. The star has been used before and doesn't seem an improvement on the image of Castellaneta. TV TFAs have run in the past with a production guy as the image, I really don't see anything wrong with this. Gran2 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was discussed when we had the water park this spring. Copyrighted characters in costume.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the star. Readers will see it and think, "Yes, the Simpsons are stars." whereas if the Castellaneta picture is used, 99.9% of readers will say, "What the hell?! That's not Homer Simpson!" Krakatoa (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commons:File:The Simpsons star.jpg and commons:File:Simpsonstar.jpg are the two usable pictures of the star. I agree, though, that having a picture of someone else is decidedly confusing - if it was an out-of-character photo of a "visual actor", or if the article wasn't about a specific character, sure - but there's no immediate visual link between the image and the named subject. Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If you use the star you may as well just write "Homer Simpson" on a white background and use that as an image. Seriously, how many people are actually going to look at the main page and go "Oh my God! There's a picture of some guy, but the words say Homer Simpson! This makes no sense, I'm just going to leave an never use this confusing site ever again!" - "North by North Quahog" ran with a picture of Seth McFarlane, using an image of Dan (with the blurb clearing featuring the word "pictured" next to his name) is more relevant than that was. Gran2 15:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"North by North Quahog" is an episode, Homer Simpson is a well-known character that most people with a tv can identify while the article has the unknown face of this guy as the picture, when only his voice is identifiable. Hekerui (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gran. The fact is, the image of his voice actor, who is just as important to the character as his creator, Matt Groening, or his design. People are not going to be confused because they see an image of a guy in an article about a cartoon, especially when the text says specifically who this guy is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using his voice actor, you are overthinking this — its his actor, that's all there is to say; it works. The Flash {talk} 19:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reader has to go down to the sixth sentence of the blurb (which appears as the seventh-eighth line on my monitor) to find out who the pictured guy is. The picture will work much better if you move the "voiced by Dan Castellaneta (pictured)" clause to the end of the first sentence. Krakatoa (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would solve it, I think. Hekerui (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Theleftorium 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moved comment is a marked improvement, I think - thanks. Shimgray | talk | 12:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 24 or 25

Nor'easter on December 23
Nor'easter on December 23
The Christmas 1994 nor'easter was an intense cyclone along the East Coast of the United States and Atlantic Canada. It developed from an area of low pressure in the southeast Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Keys, and moved across the state of Florida. As it entered the warm waters of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean, it began to rapidly intensify, exhibiting traits of a tropical system, including the formation of an eye. It attained a pressure of 970 millibars on December 23 and 24, and after moving northward, it came ashore near New York City on Christmas Eve. Due to the uncertain nature of the storm, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) did not classify it as a tropical cyclone. Heavy rain from the developing storm contributed to significant flooding in South Carolina. Much of the rest of the East Coast was affected by high winds, coastal flooding, and beach erosion. New York State and New England bore the brunt of the storm; damage was extensive on Long Island, and in Connecticut, 130,000 households lost electric power during the storm. Widespread damage and power outages also occurred throughout Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where the storm generated 30-foot (9.1 m) waves along the coast. (more...)

I think this is one or two points; one for date relevance (for either date), and one potentially for MP representation. One could argue that there has never been a similar article on the main page, since this is the only FA on an individual nor'easter, but I think there's been at least one general meteorology article as TFA in the past few months. That said, Raul had initially scheduled this in August, but upon request kindly replaced with it another FA so it could be featured around Christmas. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, is it really necessary to nom this? Didn't your discussion with Raul include a willingness on his part to run this in December when you asked him to pull it from the schedule? Perhaps this could be addressed either here or at Raul's talk page and maybe we can free up this slot. BTW, I'm thinking one point, all big bodies of wet air that move around are more or less the same to me. And I drove the NJ Turnpike in that storm, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is only 1 point. Arguing that this is different from a hurricane article is like putting a rugby article right after a cricket article and saying they are dissimilar (well, they are, but not under the TFAR criteria). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like a CFL article right after a NFL article. Both kinds of storm have a lot of air and water and move them around in funny ways, rather inconvenient if you are on the ground there while it's happening!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

Image of a side of a stone building
Prairie Avenue is a north–south thoroughfare on the South Side of Chicago, which historically extended from 16th street in the Near South Side community area of Chicago to the city's southern limits and beyond. The street has a rich history from its origins as a major trail for horseback riders and carriages. During the last three decades of the 19th century, a six-block section of the street served as the residence of many of Chicago’s elite families and an additional four-block section was also known for grand homes. The upper six-block section includes the historic Prairie Avenue District, which was declared a Chicago Landmark and added to the National Register of Historic Places. Several of Chicago's most important historical figures have lived on the street, especially after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 when many of the most important families in the city moved to the street. Preservation battles regarding properties on the street have been notable with one having been chronicled on the front page of The New York Times. As of 2009, the street is being redeveloped. Redevelopment has extended the street north to accommodate new high-rise condominiums, such as One Museum Park, along Roosevelt Road (12th street) and bordering Grant Park. (more...)

January 1

Ceres, formally designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest identified dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one in the asteroid belt. It was discovered on 1 January 1801, by Giuseppe Piazzi, and is named after Ceres, the Roman goddess of growing plants, the harvest, and motherly love. With a diameter of about 950 km (590 miles), Ceres is by far the largest and most massive body in the asteroid belt, and contains a third (32%) of the belt's total mass. Recent observations have revealed that it is spherical, unlike the irregular shapes of smaller bodies with lower gravity. The surface of Ceres is probably made of a mixture of water ice and various hydrated minerals like carbonates and clays. Ceres appears to be differentiated into a rocky core and ice mantle. It may harbour an ocean of liquid water underneath its surface. From the Earth, Ceres' apparent magnitude ranges from 6.7 to 9.3, and hence at its brightest it is still too dim to be seen with the naked eye. On 27 September 2007, NASA launched the Dawn space probe to explore Vesta (2011–2012) and Ceres (2015). (more...)

3 pts: 2+ yrs since promotion and discovery date. If I remember well, I've tried to put it here last year but it got bumped off. Also, is it a basic subject matter? Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's six nominations.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific date in mind? Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11 Feb (Piazzi's last viewing), 24 Aug (classified as dwarf planet), sometime in Feb 2015 (arrival of Dawn Mission). Yomanganitalk 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for nice round anniversaries, late June is the 5th anniversary of the first observations of surface features. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no specific date identified, but I don't think we have to leave it for a specific anniversary. The article is definitely worthy, it just has the misfortune right now of coming so close to two centennials from the same topic. This is a case where I'd say we could make a request to Raul to give this article the exposure it deserves a couple months from now, regardless of the existence of an anniversary date. Resolute 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning toward support - it's not Nergaal's fault that there are two 6 pt. moons coming up. If I read it correctly - this could go through on its own, knocking the others down to 3 pointers, which could still go through. Not an ideal situation, but if it only happens once in a blue moon ... Smallbones (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but let's face it. It is BARELY possible Raul would allow 2 astronomy articles to go through in 10 days, but three? And the fact that this comes first in the calendar really doesn't make a difference. I think this is going to be odd man out no matter how you slice it. Centennial trumps random anniversary in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And more, as soon as the moons are eligible to come on the page, they can bump this, so this nomination is keeping other articles from being nominated in the interim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, for whatever my opinion is worth. I don't think 12 year olds would learn about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since it is not basic subject matter, the article it bumped (commented out) should come back and this should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lovely Sandy: don't worry it bumped off a 1-pointer. Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Raul will pick the articles he wants to pick, but it's a worthy article and science is more important than video games or even Homer Simpson. Recall that a couple of weeks ago the article on the Scottish national hockey team got axed because the Montreal Canadiens centennial was coming up - and then Raul picked a different article for that day. Krakatoa (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per YellowMonkey. We need more physics and hard science articles on the front page. This is a wonderful article, promoted two years age. —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We already have two more deserving (point-wise) articles, although it is shame that this article has already been bumped off once. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A fine, interesting article well deserving and overdue for an appearance on the main page. The rules already give a huge advantage to articles with anniversaries which look pretty in base 10, I don't see any sense in punishing this article for what appear to me to be petty numerological concerns. --Noren (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while the article deserves a day in the Main Page, the two Galilean moons are more important from a historical standpoint, so those should have priority. It'd be nice if we could have three main astronomy articles in a short span, but I simply don't see it happening. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I saw it as a vital article 12 year olds should read about, and more topical than ever as it is now a dwarf planet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ceranthor and Sandy G. Bad timing. --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there is something else more new-years-y. I understand the desire to avoid having too many TFAs on one topic, but we can always make an occasional exception for weird circumstances (such as when a bunch of moon centennials/anniversaries fall together—how often does that happen)? And I don't think this is the sort of topic that's going to do anything bad for our reputation—no one's going to look at it think "those monkeys at Wikipedia, all they can write about is moons!" If someone were proposing to run 3 athlete articles in a month, or 3 TV shows or music albums, I would certainly oppose. But astronomical articles like this seem more academic and I don't see any harm in showing them off. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this idea, very much. On thinking about it, we give negative points, rather than a flat ban, on repeated topics for a reason - it's to say that doing X is discouraged, but if there are other good reasons then we'll give it due consideration. I say we run Ceres and Ganymede or Callisto both; it's ten or twelve days apart, they're both serious and respectable articles people aren't going to complain about, or feel cheated if we showcase them instead of something else. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the thing is that we do have a rule which says you can't nominate more than one article at a time. I would oppose evading the spirit of the rule by having someone else do the nominating. We've always taken that to mean that you can't have two articles with the same principal contributor on the page at the same time. I'd like to keep to that, there are many FAs, with many authors, and it's good to mix it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the exception here is big enough to warrant IAR. Now, if this were a very underrepresented topic (such as Psychology or Food and drink) I might agree, but astronony TFAs are not too rare. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=330773415"