Misplaced Pages

:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:08, 2 January 2013 editGrapple X (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,831 edits →Reception history of Jane Austen← Previous edit Revision as of 23:11, 2 January 2013 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers383,077 edits →Reception history of Jane Austen: former discussionNext edit →
Line 144: Line 144:
:I believe this was sort of broached before, but wouldn't ] be a better fit? The novel probably owes more of its modern day popularity to this than anything else. ''']''' ]] 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC) :I believe this was sort of broached before, but wouldn't ] be a better fit? The novel probably owes more of its modern day popularity to this than anything else. ''']''' ]] 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
::I said it the last time too but I feel that something ''directly'' related to ''Pride and Prejudice'' is a much better fit than a broader Austen article. ] ] 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC) ::I said it the last time too but I feel that something ''directly'' related to ''Pride and Prejudice'' is a much better fit than a broader Austen article. ] ] 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the former discussion:
*'''Strongly oppose'''. 28 Jan will be the 200th anniversary of the publication of ''Pride and Prejudice'' and every website in the world will be plastered in Austeniana—it's crazy to run Misplaced Pages's only Jane Austen FA now, leaving TFA on 28 Jan to be one of the generic hurricane-battleship-train station pieces of filler, just to help your apparent crusade to nominate here every single page listed at ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth, this isn't the only piece of Jane Austen material at FA. There's also ], and a ] too, either of which would also be appropriate for the anniversary. ] ] 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*:I'm a bit baffled as to why you seem to think that nominating articles for TFA is a bad thing? It spares Raul and Dabomb the extra work, and they're both quite busy at times. In fact, Gerda should be applauded for putting in extra work in this area. ] (]) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*:Why a movie or television series would be more appropriate on the ''book{{'}}s'' 200th anniversary is ... baffling. Also, I'm not sure whether I should be insulted or proud that battleships are now in road/hurricane territory. ;-) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strongly support''' (Unless anyone here knows of ''legal reasons'' to avoid running this.) Per Gerda and Grapple, it makes a lot more sense to run one of our ''Pride and Prejudice''-themed FAs on the anniversary of the book's publication instead of saving this article for then. ] (]) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It needs a bit of buffing-up, though; there are eight invalid ISBN in there, for example. :/ ] (]) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' for three reasons: 1., per Iridescent; 2., because an 18th century female author (albeit children's author) was run recently, written by the same editor; 3., because the thought of running an Austen film for the anniversary when we have this is mind-boggling to be honest. ] (]) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
**While I respect your opinion, running ''Pride and Prejudice'' to celebrate the anniversary of ''Pride and Prejudice'' doesn't seem too "mind-boggling" to me. ] (]) 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
***I understand the desire to run something more "academic" for an anniversary like this, but the actual ''relevance'' of this one is hugely smaller than the two adaptations, which are specifically rather than generally related. For an analogue; I'd rather see, say, ''The Lion King'', run on an anniversary related to ''Hamlet'' than see a different Shakespeare play just to stay "high brow" about it. In the end I'm not overly fussed, as I'm far from an Austen fan, but I think if we're keeping things for anniversaries this particular one might better serve an anniversary of Austen herself (given that it's soon the 200th anniversary of a book's release, I assume the 200th anniversary of her death will be within realistic reach?). ] ] 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::* This is why points are helpful. How long since a piece about literature was run? A TV series? A film? A piece written by the same editor? How much weight does the anniversary carry? How much coverage does the piece have? ] (]) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Iridescent and Truthkeeper. ] (]) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I suggested a general theme that had no apparent date relevance for ANY DATE - and am quite surprised about the heated discussion ;) - if it's ANY date that can be the one of an anniversary if so wanted, of course, even if I personally don't see a strong connection. No points needed to find out what would be an acceptable date for most people, --] (]) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:*In all fairness I realize you had no idea that there was a date relevance looming in the near future. But since Iridescent pointed it out, we are now faced with the decision of running this choice on that date; ]; or ]. Each of these choices are candidates for the same date. How would you propose to choose which to run? ] (]) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::*I suggest to discuss it right here - and when we come to a conclusion as to when this should run we "park it" until then. I am open for any date, also for a move of the discussion in case the slot is needed for another nomination, --] (]) 22:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::* I think we're having a failure to communicate. There is clearly a date relevance looming less than four months from now as pointed out in Iridescent's post above. My question is quite clear: do we run all of the Austen/''Pride and Prejudice'' material in the next four months, or do we spread it out? And how, without a point system, do we decide which of the three relevant pages to run on the anniversary? Personally I think things are quite fubar here at this point and I'll wander away again. (That might be an acronym you'll object to, and if so I apologize, but imo generally it is a good thing to impose order.) ] (]) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::::*The easiest solution seems to be to run this article on 28 January, what do you think about it? --] (]) 22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::* What I think is irrelevant. I'm only a single voice. Mark Arsten and GrappleX have made arguments for other pages on that date, which though I might disagree, are convincing. What I ''do'' think is that one of two things should happen: either the FAC director or the delegate decides which of these three pages to run (or to run none of them); or that we use points to decide which of the three pages should run. Who knows maybe this page will have the fewest points and still be around in 5 years for the anniversary of Austen's death. At any rate I'm returning to my wikibreak - it was very relaxing. And I'm unwatching here again. ] (]) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::*My view is that the film articles aren't as relevant as this one for a date relevance argument in less than four months. Run the film articles any time. ] (]) 23:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

end of former discussion --] (]) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


===February 14=== ===February 14===

Revision as of 23:11, 2 January 2013

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 Misplaced Pages: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===
{{Misplaced Pages: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 March 9 to April 8.

Date Article Points Notes Supports Opposes
Nonspecific 1
Nonspecific 2
January 15 Hobey Baker 1 Date relevant to article topic 3 1
January 18 Over There (Fringe) 2 Date relevant to article topic 1 1
January 26 Douglas MacArthur 3 Birthday, vital article, recent US military biography 2 2
January 28 Reception history of Jane Austen 10? 200 years Pride and Prejudice, last literature > 3 months 1 0
February 14 Icelandic Phallological Museum 3 Nothing similar in last 6 months, date relevance

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 nominations

Nonspecific date 1

Nonspecific date 2

Specific date nominations

January 15

Hobey Baker

Hobey Baker Hobey Baker (1892–1918) was an American amateur athlete of the early twentieth century. Considered the first American star in ice hockey by the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was also an accomplished football player. Born into a prominent family from Philadelphia, he enrolled at Princeton University in 1910. Baker excelled on the university's hockey and football teams, and became a noted amateur hockey player for the St. Nicholas Club in New York City. He was a member of three national championship teams, for football in 1911 and hockey in 1912 and 1914, and helped the St. Nicholas Club win a national amateur championship in 1915. Baker graduated from Princeton in 1914 and worked for J.P. Morgan Bank until he enlisted in the United States Army Air Service. During World War I he served with the 103rd and the 13th Aero Squadrons before being promoted to captain and named commander of the 141st Aero Squadron. Baker died in December 1918 after a plane he was test-piloting crashed, hours before he was due to leave France and return to America. In 1921, Princeton named its new hockey arena the Hobey Baker Memorial Rink. The Hobey Baker Award is presented annually to the best collegiate hockey player in the United States. (Full article...)

Date relevant to article topic = 1 point. Similar article not showed in over 6 months. (The similar article is the Hockey Hall of Fame) = 2 points.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add to the summary chart at the top of the page; this doesn't show in TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Nice to see a hockey article Canuck 05:29, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 point at most as sports biographies are sports biographies, and TFAR does not sub-divide similarity by sport (and certainly not by whether or not sportsmen are in a hall of fame). I note also that a sports article is nominated for 14th January and that, if Kenneth Walker runs on 5th January, Baker would be the third US airman killed in battle to appear within 6 weeks. Blurb expanded to proper length, years of birth and death added, full names cut. Bencherlite 11:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Article seems suitable for TFA, but we seem to be pretty sports-heavy, particularly if Adelaide Leak runs the previous day. Maybe next month? Montanabw 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be sub-optimal to run two sports articles back-to-back, and one is proposed for the 14th; why is this article not proposed in one of the non-date-specific slots, to give the delegates some leeway on choice of date? Those slots are empty. Also, point tally would be negative when we substract for similar articles (14th, and airmen). Also, there are four biographies on the page now, back-to-back sports, and three airmen killed in battle in a little over a month; delegates will have to overlook something that has community support to maintain mainpage diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

January 18

Over There (Fringe)

Anna Torv "Over There" is the two-part second-season finale of the Fox science fiction drama series Fringe. Both parts were written by Academy Award-winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, together with showrunners Jeff Pinkner and J. H. Wyman. Goldsman also served as director. Fringe's premise is based on the idea of two parallel universes, our own and the Other Side, each of which contains historical idiosyncrasies. The two universes began to clash in 1985, after Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble) stole the parallel universe version of his son, Peter, following his own son's death. The finale's narrative recounts what happens when Peter (Joshua Jackson) is taken back to the Other Side by his real father, dubbed "Walternate" (Noble). FBI agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv, pictured) and Walter lead a team of former Cortexiphan test subjects to retrieve him, after discovering that Peter is an unwitting part of Walternate's plans to bring about the destruction of our universe using an ancient doomsday device. Part one aired on May 13, 2010 to an estimated 5.99 million viewers, while part two broadcast a week later to 5.68 million. Both episodes received overwhelmingly positive reviews. (Full article...)

2 points -- Jan 18 will be the series finale of the American science fiction series Fringe, so I thought I'd give it a good send-off (1 pt for date relevance). This article was promoted in July 2011 (1 pt). As far as I can tell, no television episode will have appeared within a month of this date. This is the first time I've nominated an article that I've significantly contributed to, though Caroline of Ansbach ran earlier this year. Ruby 2010/2013 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose:We just ran a South Park episode; seems like another TV series is not a priority. Nothing personal, just seems like we have something more interesting out there that has more potential points. Montanabw 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns. But just looking at the other potential TFAs in January (4 historical biographies, one sports incident, and this), I think this article would actually be adding some diversity. Ruby 2010/2013 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I have to agree with Montanabtw; I'd like to think there is a large enough variety of featured content left to make the front page without having two television episodes run within five weeks of each other. Perhaps not...--Chimino (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

January 26

Douglas MacArthur

MacArthur in Manila, 1945 Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964) was an American general who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II. He received the Medal of Honor, and was one of only five men to rise to the rank of General of the Army in the U.S. Army, and was the only man to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army. After graduating first in his class from West Point in 1903, he participated in the 1914 United States occupation of Veracruz and served on the Western Front during World War I, becoming the U.S. Army's youngest and most highly decorated major general. Thereafter he held a variety of posts, including Chief of Staff of the United States Army. He retired in 1937, but was recalled to active duty during World War II. After the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, he escaped with his family and staff to Australia, where he became Supreme Commander, Southwest Pacific Area. He fulfilled a famous pledge to return to the Philippines, and officially accepted Japan's surrender on 2 September 1945. He oversaw the occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951, implementing many reforms, and led the United Nations Command in the Korean War until President Harry Truman relieved him of his commands in April 1951. (Full article...)

3 points: Vital article (4 points) + date relevance (1 point) - another article on a Medal of Honor winner (Walker on 5 January) (2 points). After MacArthur returned to the United States in 1951, his former staff and subordinates began gathering together annually at his penthouse at the Waldorf Towers in New York to celebrate his birthday. After his death, they continued to hold a reunion every year, but at varying locations, including a visit to Australia in 1974 hosted by Sir Edmund Herring. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blurb tweaked to c.1,200 characters, feel free to tinker if you feel I've got the balance wrong. Bencherlite 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Haven't we had a lot of military figures recently? Birthday is an obvious date, just wondering if we have been a little heavy on military officers, particularly American ones? This isn't an oppose, just a question> Montanabw 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • There were two in December (Jesse Brown and William the Conqueror), and this will make it two in January (with Kenneth Walker). I am one of the guilty parties who writes a lot of military biographies. MacArthur is probably the best known though, and I'm sure the article will attract a great deal of interest. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    True enough about interest, and William the Conqueror is a dramatically different character; just thought there'd been a lot of 20th century military articles recently, so figured I'd raise the issue in case it was an issue. Montanabw 18:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have run this on 5 April 2014 (fifty years since death) as there's more date relevance, but I've got no objection to this nom either. Sceptre 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support MacArthur is quite well known and accomplished a great many things, so there are a number of dates that this would work for. I would be fine with this running on the date suggested. I copyedited the blurb a bit. NW (Talk) 06:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has always been too hagiographic. Too often it gives Big Mac the podium with long quotes that are not his most famous. (1. "By profession I am a soldier..." 2. "My strategic conception for the Pacific Theater..." 3. "The Japanese people since the war..." 4. "For five hours I toured the front..." 5. "I am closing my 52 years..." 6. "The shadows are lengthening...") Only the fifth quote should be present, and it should be trimmed down to the most famous bit: "...I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty." I'm surprised that the biography does not include one of his more famous quotes about the "misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." That one seems to me more applicable to modern times than rah-rah sentiments about the "hordes of death" and "the battalions of life". In general, Wikiquote is where the lengthy quotes should be taken, not here. The bare statement in Misplaced Pages's voice, "a later generation would rediscover his philosophy of war, and see it as far-sighted", is just too much, as there is nothing like consensus on Mac's controversial legacy. The word "relief" repeatedly used for him getting fired by Truman is a powder puff replacement for the club Truman used. At the same time, the "Legacy" section does not emphasize quite enough how much respect is given MacArthur today for his guidance over occupied Japan. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The word "relief" is technically correct; we went over this ground repeatedly with the dismissal article. It is not true though, that Truman personally relieved him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Binksternet. I see a lot of unresolved discussion on the article talk page from months ago which could if pursued resolve the issues with this article. I don't feel right meantime in promoting this as our best work. --John (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

January 28

Reception history of Jane Austen

Back-view watercolour of Jane Austen by her sister Cassandra Austen The Reception history of Jane Austen follows a path from modest fame to wild popularity; her novels are both the subject of intense scholarly study and the centre of a diverse fan culture. Jane Austen, the author of such works as Pride and Prejudice (1813) and Emma (1815), has become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language. During her lifetime, Austen's novels brought her little personal fame; like many women writers, she chose to publish anonymously and it was only among members of the aristocracy that her authorship was an open secret. At the time they were published, Austen's works were considered fashionable by members of high society but received few positive reviews. By the mid-19th century, her novels were admired by members of the literary elite who viewed their appreciation of her works as a mark of cultivation. By the turn of the 20th century, competing groups had sprung up—some to worship her and some to defend her from the "teeming masses"—but all claiming to be the true Janeites, or those who properly appreciated Austen. It was not until the 1940s that Austen was widely accepted in academia as a "great English novelist". The second half of the 20th century saw a proliferation of Austen scholarship, which explored numerous aspects of her works: artistic, ideological, and historical. As of the early 21st century, Austen fandom supports an industry of printed sequels and prequels as well as television and film adaptations, which started with the 1940 Pride and Prejudice and evolved to include the 2004 Bollywood-style production Bride and Prejudice. (Full article...)

Was proposed before, but postponed for the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice, I see 2 points for FA 2008, 6 points for the centennial (sort of), 2 for last literature more than 3 months ago (23 Oct), - blurb needs trimming, but better by the authors/experts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was sort of broached before, but wouldn't Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series) be a better fit? The novel probably owes more of its modern day popularity to this than anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I said it the last time too but I feel that something directly related to Pride and Prejudice is a much better fit than a broader Austen article. GRAPPLE X 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the former discussion:

  • Strongly oppose. 28 Jan will be the 200th anniversary of the publication of Pride and Prejudice and every website in the world will be plastered in Austeniana—it's crazy to run Misplaced Pages's only Jane Austen FA now, leaving TFA on 28 Jan to be one of the generic hurricane-battleship-train station pieces of filler, just to help your apparent crusade to nominate here every single page listed at WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the main page. – iridescent 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, this isn't the only piece of Jane Austen material at FA. There's also a film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, and a television adaption too, either of which would also be appropriate for the anniversary. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm a bit baffled as to why you seem to think that nominating articles for TFA is a bad thing? It spares Raul and Dabomb the extra work, and they're both quite busy at times. In fact, Gerda should be applauded for putting in extra work in this area. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    Why a movie or television series would be more appropriate on the book's 200th anniversary is ... baffling. Also, I'm not sure whether I should be insulted or proud that battleships are now in road/hurricane territory. ;-) Ed  23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support (Unless anyone here knows of legal reasons to avoid running this.) Per Gerda and Grapple, it makes a lot more sense to run one of our Pride and Prejudice-themed FAs on the anniversary of the book's publication instead of saving this article for then. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It needs a bit of buffing-up, though; there are eight invalid ISBN in there, for example. :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for three reasons: 1., per Iridescent; 2., because an 18th century female author (albeit children's author) was run recently, written by the same editor; 3., because the thought of running an Austen film for the anniversary when we have this is mind-boggling to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • While I respect your opinion, running Pride and Prejudice to celebrate the anniversary of Pride and Prejudice doesn't seem too "mind-boggling" to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I understand the desire to run something more "academic" for an anniversary like this, but the actual relevance of this one is hugely smaller than the two adaptations, which are specifically rather than generally related. For an analogue; I'd rather see, say, The Lion King, run on an anniversary related to Hamlet than see a different Shakespeare play just to stay "high brow" about it. In the end I'm not overly fussed, as I'm far from an Austen fan, but I think if we're keeping things for anniversaries this particular one might better serve an anniversary of Austen herself (given that it's soon the 200th anniversary of a book's release, I assume the 200th anniversary of her death will be within realistic reach?). GRAPPLE X 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is why points are helpful. How long since a piece about literature was run? A TV series? A film? A piece written by the same editor? How much weight does the anniversary carry? How much coverage does the piece have? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent and Truthkeeper. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggested a general theme that had no apparent date relevance for ANY DATE - and am quite surprised about the heated discussion ;) - if it's ANY date that can be the one of an anniversary if so wanted, of course, even if I personally don't see a strong connection. No points needed to find out what would be an acceptable date for most people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In all fairness I realize you had no idea that there was a date relevance looming in the near future. But since Iridescent pointed it out, we are now faced with the decision of running this choice on that date; the TV series; or the film. Each of these choices are candidates for the same date. How would you propose to choose which to run? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest to discuss it right here - and when we come to a conclusion as to when this should run we "park it" until then. I am open for any date, also for a move of the discussion in case the slot is needed for another nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we're having a failure to communicate. There is clearly a date relevance looming less than four months from now as pointed out in Iridescent's post above. My question is quite clear: do we run all of the Austen/Pride and Prejudice material in the next four months, or do we spread it out? And how, without a point system, do we decide which of the three relevant pages to run on the anniversary? Personally I think things are quite fubar here at this point and I'll wander away again. (That might be an acronym you'll object to, and if so I apologize, but imo generally it is a good thing to impose order.) Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What I think is irrelevant. I'm only a single voice. Mark Arsten and GrappleX have made arguments for other pages on that date, which though I might disagree, are convincing. What I do think is that one of two things should happen: either the FAC director or the delegate decides which of these three pages to run (or to run none of them); or that we use points to decide which of the three pages should run. Who knows maybe this page will have the fewest points and still be around in 5 years for the anniversary of Austen's death. At any rate I'm returning to my wikibreak - it was very relaxing. And I'm unwatching here again. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

end of former discussion --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

February 14

Icelandic Phallological Museum

File:2008 Iceland national handball team - phallic casts.jpg

The Icelandic Phallological Museum, in Reykjavík, Iceland, houses the world's largest display of penises and penile parts. The collection of 280 specimens from 93 species of animals includes 55 penises taken from whales, 36 from seals and 118 from land mammals, allegedly including elves and trolls. In July 2011, the museum obtained its first human penis, one of four promised by would-be donors. Its detachment from the donor's body did not go according to plan and it was reduced to a greyish-brown shrivelled mass pickled in a jar of formaldehyde. The museum continues to search for "a younger and a bigger and better one." Founded in 1997 by retired teacher Sigurður Hjartarson and run by his son Hjörtur Gísli Sigurðsson, the museum grew out of an interest in penises that began during Sigurður's childhood when he was given a cattle whip made from a bull's penis. The museum now attracts thousands of visitors a year—the majority of them women—and has attracted international media attention, including a Canadian documentary film called The Final Member, which covers the museum's quest to obtain a human penis. According to its mission statement, the museum aims to enable "individuals to undertake serious study into the field of phallology in an organized, scientific fashion." (more...)

3 points: 2 points as there has been no similar article (on museums, Iceland or indeed phalluses) on the Main Page in the last six months; plus an extra point for date relevance (as phalluses are more likely to be relevant on Valentine's Day than any other day of the year - hopefully!). This was originally suggested for September by PumpkinSky with the blurb above but it was decided to hold it over to February, so I'm renominating it for consideration. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:
Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions Add topic