Currently accepting requests from July 1 to July 31.

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

Nonspecific date 1

Osiris myth

Egyptian mythology, don't remember anything like it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, please be more rigorous in your assessments. This is listed in the "Religion, mysticism and mythology" group, and at the least that should be considered. Archaeology (probably) and Ancient Eygpt (certainly) should also be considered. We had Egyptian temple some time ago (ok August 11 last year, so that's fine), and Olmec colossal heads (not similar, except as to date) pretty recently. I'm afraid after your recent claim that the Lost operas of Monteverdi was totally unique I'm probably not the only one taking assessments like this with a large pinch of salt. Nothing against the article at all; I supported it at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't care whether this runs, though I've edited the blurb in case it does (I think Horus and his victory should be included, and I removed one sentence that kind of dangled there when stripped of the other half that it has in the article lead). I do think this nomination deserves 1 point, because there haven't been any articles on ancient Egypt or mythology in the past three months (there was one in the last six: Ahalya in May). But I do not intend Osiris myth to be the last Egyptian religion FA this year; bigger and more important ones are in the works. A. Parrot (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonspecific date 2

Rhyolite, Nevada

• FA > 2 = 2, None recent = 2, underrep (ghost towns) = 2 PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ...ghost towns...Nevada...what's not to like? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Ghost towns are not an FA topic, so they can't be underrepresented. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - With the upcoming Craters of the Moon National Park would support this at a later date; otherwise a bit two much emphasis on the same region of the US. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parks vs Ghost Towns...not a lot in common. PumpkinSky talk 00:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Idaho & Nevada have a border in common in a relatively sparsely populated region, that's what. The Craters of the Moon National Park are TFA today; this should wait a month, assuming there is nothing else local in the meantime. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see nothing in the rules about population density determining eligibility, but topic is mention prominently and parks and ghost towns have nothing in common plus IIRC we've never had a ghost town TFA.PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it can wait a while to give this general region of the US a break from exposure. Bencherlite^Talk 11:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ghost towns are a totally different topic from national monuments; geography is irrelevant, and these are two different states and totally unrelated topics. Ghost towns are significant historical artifacts from a major era in US history, particularly these abandoned mining towns. I have never heard a more silly and, to be frank, a more blatently ignorant statement than Johnbod's remark that opposing a nom should occur because two different articles are about places that share a common border or have few people; does that mean we should not run articles on both the USA and Canada in close time proximity because they too share a border? Or perhaps we should not run articles close together on both the Gobi desert and Darwin, Australia because both are sparsely inhabited? Such comments express bias against those of us who live in the American west and study its history. Is half of the United States irrelevant to wikipedia because fewer people live there? Are our topics less important than anyone else's? Montanabw^(talk) 16:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now and with reluctance. I think this is a spectacular article and should be TFA; but not in 2012. Here are my reasons: it was me, not Johnbod, who mentioned the lack of population in the states bordering Idaho. It is relevant because there simply is not a lot to write about, nor I suspect many writers from those areas writing featured content, etc. I know the area well and am not trying to bash it. But in 2012 we've run the Yogo sapphire page about Montana gems – Montana borders Idaho – and Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, and now a proposal for yet a third page that borders Idaho. This is an issue with diffusion of content that I mentioned on the talk page - we need to be judicious with when we run these pages and not clump them all together. That's my view, anyway. And I don't like opposing such a nice page – so I hope that when people put forth proposals they look closely at the categories to see how well we're diffusing our TFA content. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonspecific date 3

Lynching of Jesse Washington

Two points for no similar articles as TFA for six months. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A must-read article. Make it so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, leading to "viewed as barbarism rather than an acceptable form of justice", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support--Chimino (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Definitely. One of our finest shows of neutrality. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support --Noleander (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Kürbis (✔) 14:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any reason that this isn't being held for May 15? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If 2016 were next year, mebbe… <br /> 23:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a rule that it has to wait for the anniversary? It's not very well known date and I'd rather have it run sooner when I know I'll be able to watch it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – a little nervous about running this until after the US election in November. May 15 would be be better imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Obama's not going to win in Texas, anyway ;) <br /> 23:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What does this have to do with the US elections? I don't understand your point at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A fine article but there will be comments and complaints if the picture runs on the main page. Should visitors of all ages to Wikipedia be presented with this graphic image in the most prominent spot on the main page without prior warning? The picture is fine in the article - people clicking through to an article about lynching can hardly complain about the fact that there might be images of lynchings in the article - but I think we need to think about this TFA running with this image. Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page makes some interesting points. Bencherlite^Talk 08:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the educational value of the image is what's important, and learning about history is often shocking. I wouldn't be surprised if people do complain, but people complain about pretty much everything we run on the main page in some way or another. Today's featured picture has run graphic images in the past, so I don't think this is entirely unprecedented. If there's a consensus not to use this picture, maybe we could use this one instead? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The image looks fine to me. This is what happened; it is part of our history, shameful of course, but there it is. Better than the patriotic history books schoolchildren are given. I don't see this as political. There's a lot of yelling back and forth in the campaign, but no one yet has supported lynching.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I too a fine with this image running. GRAPPLE X 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see nothing wrong with running this in the near future. It's not like it happened while one of the candidates was the US Prez. PumpkinSky talk 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is the appropriate one; the other is unclear at full resolution and worthless as a thumbnail. Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page is a mere pro-censorship essay and is quite ignorable. This image clearly conveys what happend to Jesse; use it. And it should be scheduled soon. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonspecific date 4

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five

2 points for no similar articles as TFA, artists in interaction --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nearly forgotten but still a great composer and an interesting article...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice page. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said below "too much music" - I think Russian symphony, French opera and a musical are all different (and 2 non-US), but if too much, this no-date should wait, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 28, 2012 was Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle, so there's no points as claimed for "no similar articles as TFA" but there would be two points for the 2yrs+ that this has been a FA. However, I think that this one can wait a bit given the very similar article not that long ago. Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to oppose per the June 2012 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle. Again, with reluctance but for reasons of diffusing the TFA content. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Thurman Tucker

1 point for birthday. The last baseball player (or person notable as an athlete) was Nick Adenhart 61 days prior. I do not consider Avery Brundage (September 6) a person who was notable as an athlete. Recent sports related were CenturyLink Field (August 8), Olympic Games (August 12), and 2007 USC Trojans football team (September 1), none of which seem similar. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather see a baseball article on the main page near the start of the World Series which is a month after that date, like 1926 World Series or Stan Musial. Secret ^account 23:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would support a baseball related page during the World Series. Don't know when that is. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose so far in September we've had one US sports team (2007 USC Trojans football team), three US biographies (Avery Brundage, William S. Sadler, William McKinley) and four other US articles (Hurricane Gustav, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, The Concert in Central Park – the last three in consecutive days). That's more US articles than in the whole of August. I think that this one can wait for now. Bencherlite^Talk 14:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Les pêcheurs de perles

1 point for day of premiere, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a nice page but we're getting too many music pages with Allegro below and Tchaikovsky above. Would support if they can be more spaced out. Same comment applies to Allegro - only two weeks between the two. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we can wait a year it's the 150th anniversary. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was thinking of nomming Nixon in China (opera) for its 25th anniversary on October 22, if I can find the time to put in references to the new book that came out about it last year and that I went to a library to copy parts of ... just saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this can wait until its 150th anniversary and there are other music articles nominated here, need to space them out. Bencherlite^Talk 11:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time. This is a brilliant article, but Nixon in China would be a more appropriate October 2012 opera TFA; let's wait for the 150th anniversary for Les pecheurs. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Appaloosa

One point for age, 2 points for widely covered, two points nothing similar six months. Oct 5 is the 135th anniversary of the end of the Nez Perce War.--PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good move, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A featured article that deserves to be on the main page.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As one of the lead editors on the piece, we'd be honored to have it appear. But can you chop this sentence from the blurb? "Appaloosas are prone to develop equine recurrent uveitis and congenital stationary night blindness; the latter has been linked to the leopard complex" It's accurate, and in the lead, but given its prevalence (8%), may be undue weight for the main page blurb. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. And thanks!PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You (everybody) can change the blurb yourself, that's part of the quality discussion here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can we have a close up rear view to show the world?  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If we find one, sure!PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article already contains File:Appaloosa46-2.jpg a ways down the page (see "blanket with spots") LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OH YEA forgot about that one! PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)

Two points for age, 1 for date relevance, two points nothing similar six months. Oct 8 is the 157th anniversary of battle at mouth of river.PumpkinSky talk 00:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: the blurb would not make me click. The date relevance is not visible, but the snow is. In October, I would like to see a different image ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I think a river is nice, but another article about the American West/Northwest. Needs some spreading out imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Referencing mechanism is incredibly old-school; not an example of best practice. <br /> 23:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, probably incredibly two-and-a-half years ago, when it passed. Out of curiosity, do you know of an article that follows the "best practice?" LittleMountain5 01:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}}, which do literally the same thing except with a template. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they do more, such as facilitate WP:V and ease maintenance. <br /> 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, [[#blah|reference]] isn't much more than {{sfn|author|date|pages}}. Same with <ref name="Source" group=Note/> versus {{refn|name=Source|group=Note}}. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/yeah/, really ;) You're just missing it. A pity… <br /> 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old school refs aren't longer in wikitext and look the same. Good enough for me. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only concerns, though… <br /> 02:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite a few of them ;) this was unimpressive. <br /> 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...An example would be nice. What are your other concerns? LittleMountain5 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegro (musical)'s handy, just below. You not making any effort to restore the edits I'd made that you stepped on is still of concern ;) <br /> 06:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since two-thirds of the references are online sources, I feel that the method already in use is better in this case. But the sfn template does clean up the code a bit, so I might try using that. Thanks! Is the coding the problem here, or the general layout? I've long sought after a viable alternative to the reference layout... it feels clunky to me.

I apologize for the edit stomp. I fully intended to restore your changes, and was in the process of doing so when you restored them yourself. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A battle that doesn't even get mentioned in the blurb is far too tenuous a link to merit a date relevance point, IMHO. Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Allegro

One point for age, one point for anniversary of Broadway opening, two points nothing similar six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: a piece with an interesting story. I would like to see the date mentioned rather early in the blurb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: looks good to me.--Chimino (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support...Modernist (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – because of the article's subject and despite my view of the idiotic "date relevance" of October 10. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• now I get it. October 10 is important and really ties in! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lucky102 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Southern Cross Expedition

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, date relevance, under represented +1 = 4, Oct 14 is date of death of the expedition zoologist. PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, great article on heroic topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 points the date relevance is far too tenuous and this is an article within the history category at WP:FA, not one of "underrepresented" categories. Bencherlite^Talk 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for any date there would be more appropriate dates than this e.g. 19 December when the ship finally sails from Australia for the Antarctic, but (subject to any preference from the primary author, who I've just notified as per the instructions above) this could just run on any date the TFA scheduler wants. Bencherlite^Talk 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, Date relevant to article topic +1, total = 3.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This blurb needs work. Should be one paragraph, and the date is generally year only. Looks a little short, but that could just be me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have re-written the blurb. See what you think -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From a technical aspect it's better, but I don't think it needs the dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting (and another woman), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- I really like this page; might need a bit of tidying. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 points - death dates, by longstanding convention on this page, do not get a date relevance point unless the death itself was notable (e.g. the death of John Lennon gave his article a date relevance point). Bencherlite^Talk 08:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is changing. The point math seems only relevant if there is "competition" about a specific day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so why do we need points at all any more? Nominate an article for a slot, explain why it deserves it and let supports/opposes/"prefer the competing article" decide, rather than artificial discussions about whether a previous recent TFA is sufficiently similar to a nominated one to impose a points penalty. It would make this page far less complicated. In the meantime, let's get the points right, rather than claiming date relevance points on spurious grounds or incorrectly claiming "underrepresented" or "widely covered" points. Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you place that valid thought - which I would support - on the talk rather than here where it will disappear without even an archive when the Lady will be scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think any Date relevance should be used.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]