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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Raul654 (talk | contribs)
Formatting request
Line 180: Line 180:


:::Nom it for both dates and include an explanation that if ISS is ready, it would probably make a better article, but just in case ...--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Nom it for both dates and include an explanation that if ISS is ready, it would probably make a better article, but just in case ...--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

==Formatting request==
Could people posting suggestions here please use the same formatting that is used in the main page blurbs? That is to say, (1) remove all endlines, (2) remove all ref tags (3) link the title to the article (4) remove all extraneous bolding (5) trim birth/death dates down to year only (6) remove all alternate names (7) trim down the length to roughly 1200 characters or less. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:16, 16 July 2009


Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from June 1 to July 1. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection.
Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns.

viewedithistorywatch

Date Article Reason Primary author(s) Added by (if different)
June 6 Saving Private Ryan Why Darkwarriorblake, Vote for something that matters Sheila1988
June 15 Death of Kevin Gately Why Kusala1952, SchroCat Sheila1988
June 16 Whisky Galore! (1949 film) Why SchroCat Dank
June 20 Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō Why Sturmvogel_66 Peacemaker67
June 21 Giraffe Why LittleJerry
June 25 Mckenna Grace Why Pamzeis
June 28 Well he would, wouldn't he? Why voorts & Tim O'Doherty
July 1 Flag of Canada Why Gary Dank
July 2 Maple syrup Why Nikkimaria Dank
July 4 Statue of Liberty Why Wehwalt Dank and Wehwalt
July 18 John Glenn Why Hawkeye7, Kees08 Dank
July 19 John D. Whitney Why Ergo Sum
July 21 Ernest Hemingway Why Victoriaearle Dank
July 29 SMS Bodrog Why Peacemaker67
August 11 Yugoslav torpedo boat T2 Why Peacemaker67
August 19 Battle of Winwick Why Gog the Mild
August 26 Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 Why Gog the Mild
August 31 George Town, Penang Why HundenvonPenang Sheila1988
September Avenue Range Station massacre Why (rerun, first TFA was September 3, 2018) Peacemaker67
September 6 Liz Truss Why Tim O'Doherty Sheila1988
September 21 Artur Phleps Why (rerun, first TFA was November 29, 2013) Peacemaker67
October 1 The Founding Ceremony of the Nation Why Wehwalt
October 4 Olmec colossal heads Why Simon Burchell Dank
October 14 Brandenburg-class battleship Why Parsecboy Parsecboy and Dank
October 15 Battle of Glasgow, Missouri Why HF
October 19 "Bad Romance" Why FrB.TG
October 21 Takin' It Back Why MaranoFan
October 25 Fusō-class battleship Why Sturmvogel_66 and Dank Peacemaker67
October 29 Cucurbita Why Sminthopsis84 and Chiswick Chap Dank
October 31 The Smashing Pumpkins Why WesleyDodds Dank
November Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana Why Peacemaker67
November 3 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election Why Elli
November 11 Mells War Memorial Why HJ Mitchell Ham II
November 17 SMS Friedrich Carl Why Parsecboy Peacemaker67
November 18 Donkey Kong Country Why TheJoebro64, Jaguar TheJoebro64
November 21 MLS Cup 1999 Why SounderBruce
November 22 Donkey Kong 64 Why czar
November 27 Interstate 182 Why SounderBruce
November 28 Battle of Cane Hill Why Hog Farm
December 1 Mariah Carey Why Extraordinary Machine SNUGGUMS
December 3 PlayStation (console) Why Jaguar Dank
December 13 Taylor Swift Why Ronherry FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS
December 20 Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Why TheJoebro64 Sheila1988
December 25 A Very Trainor Christmas Why MaranoFan Sheila1988
2025:
January 8 Elvis Presley Why PL290, DocKino, Rikstar Dank
January 9 Title (album) Why MaranoFan
January 22 Caitlin Clark Why Sportzeditz Dank
March 18 Edward the Martyr Why Amitchell125 Sheila1988
March 26 Pierre Boulez Why Dmass Sheila1988
April 12 Dolly de Leon Why Pseud 14
April 25 1925 FA Cup Final Why Kosack Dank
May 5 Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) Why MaranoFan
May 15 Daytona USA Why Harizotoh9
June 1 Total Recall (1990 film) Why Harizotoh9
June 1 Namco Why Harizotoh9
June 8 Barbara Bush Why Harizotoh9
June 29 Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 Why Harizotoh9
June 26 Donkey Kong Land Why Harizotoh9
August 23 Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 Why Peacemaker67
August 30 Late Registration Why Harizotoh9
August 31 Japanese battleship Yamato Why Harizotoh9
September 5 Peter Sellers Why Harizotoh9
September 30 or October 1 Hoover Dam Why NortyNort, Wehwalt Dank
October 3 Spaghetti House siege Why SchroCat Dank
October 10 Tragic Kingdom Why EA Swyer Harizotoh9
October 16 Angela Lansbury Why Midnightblueowl MisawaSakura
October 18 Royal Artillery Memorial Why HJ Mitchell Ham II
November 20 Nuremberg trials Why buidhe harizotoh9


Template:FixBunching

June 16 was selected by Raul, so I removed it

I saw June 16 was selected by Raul to be in the queue, so I removed the nomination and replaced it with the July 10 nomination. Then my nomination was removed someone claiming that it is too early. Why is this? Raul has selected the June 16 nomination and placed it on the queue so I don't think there is anything wrong with removing the June 16 nomination here on this page. Raul placed it on the queue at 7:01 and I replaced the nomination at 8:00. I did read the rules. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rules. If an article has five or more points, we only accept it 20 days in advance of the last date Raul has scheduled. This is to keep high point articles, which are certainly getting on the main page if we have anything to say about it, from occupying a slot for two long. Once June 20 is scheduled, please feel free to renom Calvin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I did read the rules and it said "Please consider". That doesn't sound like a rule. I would suggest that you change the wording. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also look underneath there where it says what days we are accepting. However, you are right, the 20 days was a rule change and we obviously didn't change that language, so I will start a proposal. Sigh. Thanks for the thought and please wait those few days, it won't prejudice your article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see someone nominated Calvin on 17 June. The 20 June article still hasn't been selected, so your "rule" would not normally accept this. So why was my nomination not accepted and reverted, while the 17 June nomination by T1980 was accepted and is now being voted upon? This sounds rather arbitrary to me. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't care whether I or someone else nominated the article. The only difference in the end is that my blurb is different from T1980's. Raul would rewrite the blurb anyway so it isn't a big deal. However, it would be nice to know why I was treated differently on this requests page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't. When I checked the request page, it said that July 10 was open to five point articles, once T1980 made his nomination. So Raul had done some scheduling in the interim, or at least by the time I checked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, but that appears to be completely different criteria. If it is not based on the 20-day count, but when Raul does his scheduling, then I would suggest that the automatically generated dates are placed in bold, e.g.,
  • Currently accepting requests from June 20 to July 20 (only up to July 10 if the entry would have five or more points)
--RelHistBuff (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained, that it is based on time from the last scheduled date, so obviously Raul's scheduling has everything to do with it. The 20 day count runs from Raul's scheduling. I'm not sure I understand your point.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this explained about Raul's scheduling? The only time the 20 days is mentioned is "Please consider waiting until there are 20 days or fewer". I thought that meant 10 July minus 20 days. In any case, if there is a automatically generated display that you are using to monitor the proper dates, then making them bolded would avoid newbies like me from any misunderstandings. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the instructions talk about dates that have not been scheduled, and then it gives a range of dates you can schedule for. TFA/R is complicated, obviously, and given that this is the first complaint of this kind we've had, I'm guessing that usually people catch it and understand it. I don't know, if the community thinks there is a problem here, rather than an one-off misunderstanding, we can rewrite it, or perhaps you have a suggestion. I'm not sure bolding will do the trick.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to make the dates bold. It is clear that you are using those dates to monitor whether a nomination is too early or not. Why not make that clear for the nominators? Making the dates bold would remove any of the "when-does-Raul-schedule" ambiguity. I suppose there are not many complaints because it is such a pain to get any proper explanation of how the current TFA/R page works. I am just more persistent! :) The bolding certainly can't make it any worse. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly made the dates bold. Nominators can now easily see what the monitors of this page use for "replacement" criteria. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That's fine. I was waiting to see if other people would comment, but I guess not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to cure flaw in rules

We changed the rules last year at Sandy's request to require a shorter waiting period for five plus point articles. We carelessly left in contradictory language. I propose to change the language under "Adding requests" reading in relevant part:

"The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Please consider waiting until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and allow other articles their chance."

to

"The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Please consider waiting Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and allow other articles their chance. (deleted text struck out, new text italicized)

I so propose--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an unimportant note: I don't recall that being at my request, but whatever :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

Agree:

  • As proposer.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems reasonable to me. Any article with 5 or more points isn't going to have a hard time getting on the main page, and there's no reason to tie up this page for any longer than is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Parsecboy —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; a reasonable idea. Binksternet (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good change...also, though, it might be nice to combine those two sentences (with a semicolon or whatever) because right now it's still kind of awkward; each sentence around them is unrelated (they don't flow from one to another) so having two related sentences there feels strange. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As one of the editors involved in the brouhaha that lead to the suggestion. The "suggestion" has worked well enough to make it a rule at this point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a five-point article will never get bumped itself—but it can bump other worthy articles. This is a common sense change. —Ed (TalkContribs) 02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree:

Neutral:

I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional change proposal

If the above goes ahead, change the lead paragraph from "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled" to "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days (20 days for articles with 5 or more points) that have not yet been scheduled" (change shown in italics) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26 June

I find how this system currently works a little confusing, looking through the project pages history it states the following: "26 June (Operation Epsom) 2 pointer, with 8 July (Kevin Pietersen) for 6 points - 20 days away"; does this mean then that the discussion to put Epsom on the front page has been disregarded or will it be slotted in?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul makes the decision. We won't know until the date is scheduled, unless he says something. And Pietersen is most likely a four point article, though that is small consolation. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it didn't run, but about 90 percent of the articles proposed here run eventually (I mean, within a year). If there are no other dates of significance for anniversaries, why not try to run it on Veteran's Day?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-arranged some of the scheduled articles to schedule Operation Epsom for the 30th. (Meaning that we'll have WWII articles on June 19, June 30, and July 4 -- more than I'd prefer, but unlikely to cause any problems in the long haul). Raul654 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say thanks, in future however how long should one wait until requesting an article to be placed on the schedule - once the 30 day prior to the date or much closer to the "closing date"?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda depends on how many points the article has, a low point article may not be able to defend its spot. I'd say around 20 days would be a good amount of time. Also helps to list it on the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MJ?

I'm wondering, we rejected the Michael Jackson article a while back, what about running it on the day of his funeral, whatever that is? Are we asking for it? Note that from what I hear the MJ article is getting lots of traffic and edits, so I'm not sure it could make things worse.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His birthday (Aug 29) might be a better bet ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still up to FA standards after the swarm of edits that have descended on it since his death? I'm sure there are lots of editors keeping an eye on it to revert vandalism, speculation, etc., but maybe it will still need a quick review to make sure it's ok for the main page? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick glance and didn't see anything alarming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Birthdays of dead people are so blah, no one even blows out the candles. How often do we get to run a FA on the day of a guy's funeral?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the body has been released to the family. I suggest we IAR this, and either list it for "Funeral date" or else wait until a funeral date is announced, then list the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please not August 29; Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. just recently passed FA, and another user and I were hoping to have him on the mainpage that day to commemorate the 200th anniversary of his birth. I just added the article to the waiting list. María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have they set a funeral date? Raul654 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not publicly. Articles are saying things like the family is discussing it. Now apparently there's going to be a second autopsy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the funeral date as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AgreeJuliancolton | Talk 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say funeral if we have enough lead time, or memorial service if not. Since OWH Sr. had the bad luck to be born on the same day as MJ, if we can't make it for the funeral or memorial service, then the thriller will just have to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this CNN report, there will be a public viewing at the Neverland Ranch on Friday, July 3, and then possibly a memorial service in Gary, Indiana (his birthplace) on Friday, July 10. Jackson's family has still not decided what to do. NW (Talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no definite word on when the burial would be. Obviously I don't advocate displacing an anniversary TFA like Calvin ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the idea of featuring Michael Jackson's article this year. Following his death, it was appropriate for us to link to his article in ITN (where it remained for close to 4 ½ days), but that section is the only one intended to approach the immediacy of a news outlet. Displaying Michael Jackson as the featured article on the day of his funeral (etc.) would have the following consequences:
  • It would step on the toes of Wikinews and contribute to a false perception of Wikipedia's purpose among members of the general public (many of whom already mistake us for a news website).
  • It would draw unneeded edits to an article that undoubtedly will be in flux (and already will require significant editorial attention) that day.
  • It would create the appearance of favoritism toward Michael Jackson and resentment/unrealistic expectations among fans of other dying celebrities (especially those who are unfamiliar with the featured article process, who would mistakenly assume that we decided to "feature" Michael Jackson because he died).
I understand the temptation to ride the Michael Jackson death wave (as so many other websites have done), but I believe that it would be more practical (and more consistent with our mission as an encyclopedia) to wait until June 25 or August 29 of next year (by which point the article should be in a far more stable state). —David Levy 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could always semi-protect the article that day. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a last-ditch solution (particularly given the fact that current events will necessitate that the article be substantially edited, likely attracting many newcomers and other unregistered users eager to participate in a constructive manner) to a problem that needn't exist (on that scale, at least) in the first place. —David Levy 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gee, given what we saw after Jackson died, there's going to be a flood no matter what. Do you think making it TFA or not will make a material difference in terms of edits? How many people are not already going to KNOW and will just innocently fire up WP and see Jackson's mug staring at them and say "Hey, I'd better edit that." I suggest it's a swimming pool's worth, lost in the flood.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Jackson's funeral is likely to draw a large influx of edits. The same is true of featuring the article on the main page (just as it is with every featured article appearing on the main page). Combining these events would substantially decrease the likelihood that the situation(s) will be manageable without resorting to semi-protection.
Of course, it is highly possible that the influx caused by the funeral alone will necessitate semi-protection, and that's an excellent reason to not feature the article that day. (We try to protect/semi-protect the featured article as little as possible.) I cited the article's sure-to-be-unstable state above. —David Levy 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... the potential for a "large influx of edits" just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to withhold featuring MJ on the main page to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Withhold featuring MJ on the main page"? You say that as though there's a default assumption that we'll feature his article on the day of his funeral. I'm presenting an argument that we should feature his article on another day, and I've cited several reasons why. —David Levy 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David, and would oppose any proposal to make this (or any other article) TFA while it is still making news. The reason is that articles are only featured on the main page once, so to feature them at the time is only telling part of the story. In the case of Michael Jackson, wait till the hype has died down, possibly the anniversary of his death next year, when historical implications of his death have been analysed and incorporated into the article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. I wasn't convinced by the earlier argument against featuring this, but Tivedshambo has suggested a good alternative. This is a good chance for Wikipedia to present itself as careful, analytical, and serious, rather than as sensationalist. Featuring a thoughtfully-written article a year from now, rather than a hurried one a few days from now, would show great foresight and self-control. (Assuming, of course, that someone can keep it up to FA status for a year.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is precisely what I have in mind. Either June 25 (the anniversary of Jackson's death) or August 29 (Jackson's birthday) of next year would be an appropriate choice. As an encyclopedia, we seek depth, not immediacy. —David Levy 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose running it on July 7, the date of the memorial service. The community chose to recommend an article for that date with date relevance, Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy. I think we have to look to the integrity of the TFA/R process there. Jury's still out on the funeral date, though, apparently.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy could run on its murder date, November 7. I don't think we're so deep into proceduralism that we can't flex when a current event interferes. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The emergence of a current event is not a good reason to feature an article. In fact, as Modest Genius points out below, it's precisely the opposite. —David Levy 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds of featured article criteria 1e, which states 'its content does not change significantly from day to day'. This is understandably impossible on the day of his funeral, memorial etc. There's no way the article can be an example of our best work on that day. Modest Genius talk 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it will be a popular move, and will promote the encyclopedia. And because we can. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Featuring a severely fluctuating, inaccuracy-prone article as an example of our best content would not a good way to promote the encyclopedia, and featuring an article that many users (including Jackson's fans) would find themselves unable to edit would not be popular. —David Levy 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Modest Gunius on this one, there will be a lot of change with the article on the day of his funeral and it's probably better to wait until the final details on his death are available. So, it would be wise to try another time to get this on TFA. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose from main contributor - Absolutely not. In the space of a week the article has turned into a complete mess, most of it will need reverting back to a pre death version with a small section dedicated to the death. It would be more appropriate to wait until his Birthday. — Please comment R2 23:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd rather see it on the main page for the first anniversary of his death. By that time, things will have settled down and the article will be back in shape. Failing that, I would support it going on the main page for his birthday. Pyrrhus16 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'm opposed to having Michael Jackson as the featured article, but Thriller could be a good alternative. — Please comment R2 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although, it would also be a great one for Halloween in October. Pyrrhus16 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better alternative. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as Halloween seems like a much better alternative. Sceptre (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: The single Thriller (song) or its extended music video Thriller (music video) would be topics better suited to Halloween; the album Thriller (album) has no other special tie in with Halloween but does include other hits like "Beat It" and "Billy Jean", and thus is generic w.r.t. to any date. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree there, the Thriller song and video only make up 20% of the articles coverage, if that. — Please comment R2 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just noting again that it is the album (not the single or video) that is the FA right now. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While Halloween is also fine, it would be great if we could run something Jackson-related on the day of his funeral, because that will be the day where most people ever pay attention to Jackson for all time. Since Realist (and many others) have expressed his opposition to running Michael Jackson, it seems like a perfect opportunity to run the only other Jackson-related article we have at FA. NW (Talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have tons of other good, scary articles for Halloween, and this is a way to save the main MJ article for next year. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Album is very appropriate way to memorialize MJ without suffering from recentism. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite support. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good choice, and once again props to Realist2 for his dedication to quality coverage of Michael Jackson. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SupportEd (TalkContribs) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...it was already on the main page. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...apparently I should have checked the dates :) —Ed (TalkContribs) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a mildly interesting article, and it's clearly had a lot of work put into it... but I can't help feeling that having WP's homepage feature the word "Cunt", even as a compound, is rather bad PR. I guess you guys discuss these things all the time, and you must know what you're doing, but still... EJBH (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for us!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40th anniversery of 1st moon landing

Following discussion at TFAR (ending about June 25), I'll nominate Sirius tomorrow for July 20, to commemorate to 40th anniversary of the 1st moon landing. MJ fans may be interested that the first moon walk was a day later. I know Sirius is only tangentially related to the moon landing, but there ought to be something. Comments welcome. Smallbones (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested that we consider International Space Station if it makes it way successfully through FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm back from vacation and consider myself almost caught up on this issue. ISS looks like it's coming along but is not a sure thing. Sirius is probably better for Aug. 1, but makes a good backup. I'll wait, but how long should we wait? Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom it for both dates and include an explanation that if ISS is ready, it would probably make a better article, but just in case ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting request

Could people posting suggestions here please use the same formatting that is used in the main page blurbs? That is to say, (1) remove all endlines, (2) remove all ref tags (3) link the title to the article (4) remove all extraneous bolding (5) trim birth/death dates down to year only (6) remove all alternate names (7) trim down the length to roughly 1200 characters or less. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]