| Revision as of 14:08, 28 November 2005 editRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits removing scheduled articles← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:10, 28 November 2005 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits This is NOT a voteNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| The ''']''' is a ] ] which arises when attempting to apply ] to the notion of an ] being. The paradox is based around the question of whether or not an omnipotent being is able to perform actions that would limit its own omnipotence, thus becoming non-omnipotent. Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a ], as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence. | The ''']''' is a ] ] which arises when attempting to apply ] to the notion of an ] being. The paradox is based around the question of whether or not an omnipotent being is able to perform actions that would limit its own omnipotence, thus becoming non-omnipotent. Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a ], as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence. | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| *'''Support'''. I won't hold Raul654 to his previously-stated suggestion to not feature an event/holiday on the same day as its anniversary. This is just an alternate suggestion. He makes the final decision, of course. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 07:33</small> | |||
| *'''Seconded'''. It's a very nice article, and the relevance is too obvious to mention. ] 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I like these kind of arguments. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I also add '''support'''. ] 07:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' to December 25th nomination; '''strong support''' any day around that. I prefer the idea of having Christmas on December 25th than this article. I think the amusing synchronity of Christmas on Christmas will get a lot more people reading the article and getting involved in Misplaced Pages than if we took advantage of the holiday to feature an article on a philosophical paradox, don't you? :) And I don't see the big problem with featuring an article on the day when it would normally be mentioned as a holidary or anniversary (as was recently done for Rosa Parks on December 1st); why not just have it be FAd ''instead'' of mentioning the anniversary, so as to avoid redundancy? Replace the event for a day with another one of the many fascinating events in the expanded list of selected anniversaries. It'll give us a chance to put anniversaries and events on the main page that wouldn't normally get the spotlight but are probably quite interesting anyway, which is good for everyone! If you think it's vital that we juxtapose Christmas with the Omnipotence paradox (I honestly don't really see the significance), why not have it be Featured on either December 24th or December 26th? Then we get both the miracle of Christmas ''and'' the ironically-juxtaposed critique of theism. :) -] 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Good article on an important philosophical topic --] ] 09:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Great article, interesting, informative and well referenced. ] 09:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I agree, it is a great article, and different to the traditional 'Christmas' article. ] 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as per ] ''et al''. ] ] 09:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Very interesting and good article. ] 10:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''; Great and informative article about an interresting subject. Placing it on this particular day will underline Wiki's objectiveness and non-religious/political agenda. ] 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support'''. Excellent article, and neutral in its relevance (i.e., it highlights excellent arguments both for and against its status as a true paradox); <strike>if ] were nominated, I would have to register opposition,</strike> I oppose the nomination of ], as I believe having a holiday highlighted on its own day is off-putting to those who do not celebrate it, as well as simply tacky. - ] 10:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Very high quality article - clear, well referenced and laid out. I agree with Celcius' comment on objectiveness too. ] 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' having it on Christmas Day. It would look odd, to say the least, to choose to have an article strongly questioning the existence of God (and therefore the divinity of Christ) on that day. By all means have it on a less religiously sensitive day though, ] 11:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **The article doesn't strongly question the existence of God. It presents the specific issue of the ]. The article is not POV (and therefore can't "strongly" lean one way or the other), and is a newly Featured Article. It should be judged on that basis. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 11:35</small> | |||
| **Pshaw. And what's wrong with offending people? What I say is, if Christmas being Featured on the 25th is inconceivably wicked, let's have it on the 24th (or 23rd, if Eve is just as big of a problem), and "omnipotence paradox" on december 25th (or nearby, who really cares? if we aren't having Christmas featured on the 25th, we might as well put a radio or a dinosaur or something up on that day). I care just as little about offending people with "omnipotence paradox" on a religiously day as I do about offending people with "christmas" on Christmas; we should base our choice on what's the most useful, interesting, appealing, and resonant choice, not on political correctness or fear of being accused of systemic bias. We'll always be accused of that, so bending over backwards to avoid it does nothing but worsen the quality of Misplaced Pages. :O -] 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **We should always be aware of various political and religious sensibilities surrounding various days. Anniversaries can be very touchy subjects - and avoiding them has benefits. It's easy to find juxtapositions that sit uneasily - why just not go there? ] 11:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Very good to have it on christmas day. The christmas article will be in anniversaries already. ] <sup>]]]]]</sup> 11:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I think it's worth mentioning that having an article that contains questions of the existence of God on the main page on a christian holiday could leave us open to accusations of trolling. ] ] 11:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **You're perspicacious today, Leithp ;-) — ] (]) 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Yeah, I was trying to be polite but just ending up sounding rather dumb. Ah, well... ] ] 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose'''. There's no use antagonizing a large group of people on one of their most sacred holidays. It will just build most animosity, which we atheists don't need right now. If the idea is to use persuasion to show people alternate ideas, do it on a day that doesn't have such significance to the group you are speaking to. --] 12:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose'''. Having this article appear on Christmas Day is, pure and simply, a gigantic '''FUCK YOU''' to Christians. I would be opposed to ] as the FA, too, because it would be impossibly twee, and insensitive to non-Christians (especially the people who like the idea of screaming "FUCK YOU"). How about we don't choose FAotDs to be relevant to particular anniversaries? ] (]) 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *This "vote" (and the even more ridiculous one below) is precisely why we let the ] choose the front-page article by fiat. -- ] ] 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I think ], and that this article is great, but the connection to Christmas is just too clear and a lot of people will be pissed off, no matter how great the article is. ] | ] 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose'''. It should be featured, but there's no reason to chose the 25th other than to be antagonistic. Even though it is truly a theistic-assuming debate, most beleivers will interpret it as trolling to have it featured on that day. Incidentally, I oppose featuring ] on the 25th too, though not as strongly. --] 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 61: | Line 33: | ||
| Newton also developed a ], proved the ], and discovered the principles of conservation of ] and ]. | Newton also developed a ], proved the ], and discovered the principles of conservation of ] and ]. | ||
| ] 06:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | ] 06:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support'''. Was thinking of nom'ing this myself. Suggest we wait until January 4th in honour of his birthday (and the Julian, "OS", dates should be dropped as the changing of the system doesn't overlap his life). Might throw the nice pic from the page up here. ] 13:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Line 77: | Line 48: | ||
| The "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, which made FA a few weeks ago. ] 19:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | The "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, which made FA a few weeks ago. ] 19:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''', G.G. Liddy once promised he would personally shoot "Deep Throat" if he ever found out who he was. With such threats hanging over him, it is small wonder Mr. Felt remained under "Deep cover" for so long. Fascinating article and charachter.--] 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] (To be featured on December 25)=== | ===] (To be featured on December 25)=== | ||
| Line 85: | Line 55: | ||
| Surprised this hasn't been featured on the front page yet. Please consider featuring this article on its day of observance (]). | Surprised this hasn't been featured on the front page yet. Please consider featuring this article on its day of observance (]). | ||
| ] 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | ] 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Strongly agree'''. I was one of several editors who worked hard to get this article up to speed by last Christmas, and was disappointed when it made "feature" but was not front-paged on 12/25. FWIW, my vote is for cultural, not religious, reasons. ] 00:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strongly agree'''. I was one of several editors who worked hard to get this article up to speed by last Christmas, and was disappointed when it made "feature" but was not front-paged on 12/25. FWIW, my vote is for cultural, not religious, reasons. ] 00:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Agree''' with this being frontpaged on Dec 25th, but '''strongly disagree''' with the use of the term "Ásatrú" in the summary. The ] article, to which that redirects, says that "use of Ásatrú for Germanic paganism preceding 19th century revivalist movements is ... an anachronism. Likewise, use of Ásatrú as a synonym of Germanic Neopaganism, while widespread in the USA, can be misleading." So it's not only a term that most readers of this ''international'' encyclopedia won't know, but the article it links to says it's inaccurate too! | |||
| : Since "holiday" can also be considered a bit odd outside a Christian context, maybe change "] ] midwinter holiday" to something like "] midwinter feast"? — ] <small>]</small> 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Agree''' with ]. The above summary was always only an initial suggestion, and I welcome any ideas to improve it. ] 09:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strongly agree'''. What could be better? I mean, who would go to Misplaced Pages December 25 and not wonder about it? I think it would be very interesting because there are a lot of things one wonders about during these holidays. ] 19:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :*] will already be listed on the main page under the "Holidays" section. Raul654 is usually against listing the same item in two spots on the main page. — <small>]] • 2005-11-27 07:06</small> | |||
| :*Also, if the article was feautred on 12/25/2005, it wouldn't be able to be featured again until at least 2007 or later, probably; so it doesn't make much sense to say that people will be expecting it to be there on 12/25, since it can not always be there on every December 25th. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 01:20</small> | |||
| :'''Strongly agree''' — ] 08:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Agree''' ] ] 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Disagree'''. It will already be under holidays that day. Also, I hear Raul is against this sort of thing. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strong disagree''', as per AngryParsley. It will be on the page twice, taking up excess space. It's not like the article will be able to be featured on Christmas next year, since we have more than 365 featured articles. Pick any other day and that'll be fine. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 08:47</small> | |||
| :'''Strong support'''. Remove it from holidays on that day, and while you're at it remove Rosa Parks from "selected anniversaries" on December 1, allowing us to bring up a different event that is probably neglected but very important and fascinating anyway. Not having Christmas featured on Christmas would be throwing away a ''golden'' opportunity to generate a lot of new interest in Misplaced Pages among people visiting the website on that day, as the synchronity will be interesting enoug to catch people's attentions immediately. Logical paradoxes are one of my favorite subjects in the world, but I see absolutely no reason that the "omnipotence paradox" can't be featured on any other day, and leave this article to be featured on a beautifully suitable day. :) I'd say the same thing about any opportunity to add some amusing and unique flair and synchronity to Misplaced Pages's main page for a day. -] 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You're saying Christmas should not be listed under the "Holidays" section??? — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 09:09</small> | |||
| ::*I'm going to agree with Brian0918 here and say, "wtfmate?" Featuring Christmas on Christmas doesn't make much sense, especially since it already will have front page space. It's silly to unlist it from the list of holidays. Also, making it the front page article that day is unusual and much too unoriginal for wikipedia. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Disagree'''. Featured articles and front page selected anniversaries should not overlap, and Christmas obviously belongs in the latter on December 25th. ] 09:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*This is far from an absolute rule. Exceptions can be made: see ], which , but had that event removed because of ]. I see absolutely no reason that the exact same thing can't be done here, considering what a golden opportunity this is for us to feature Christmas on the perfect day for doing so. I wouldn't ask us to go to create lengths to wait until December 25th for featuring this article if it was, say, July, but with December almost here already, it would be silly of us ''not'' to pick the article that will make us look clever, focused, and adept at planning these things out. :) -] 09:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::**I don't care about its questionable status as a "rule". I am opposed to having the same thing be prominent twice on the main page. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 09:17</small> | |||
| ::::*I obviously haven't made myself clear. As my above example has shown: it doesn't have to ''be'' on the main page twice. If it gets Featured on that day, we can very easily remove the other references to it, replacing them with various interesting events and observances that normally wouldn't be mentioned at all despite their importance, and making a neat new opportunity out of this unusual event to ''not'' have the "selected anniversaries" section completely dominated by Christmas (as it ]). Where's the big issue here? Why the dramatic conflict? There's no terrifying risk of redundancy here, we have a whole month to easily make sure that the page isn't excessively "Christmasy" by changing the other sections and just having the FA box featuring take care of that. OK? -] 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::**Remove Christmas as the holiday??? Of course it should be listed in the '''holiday section'''. Christmas is THE holiday on December 25th. I'm opposed to intermingling the roles of different areas of the main page, which in this case means '''holidays'''. '''Any other day of the year, such activity would not be allowed.''' By allowing an exception such as this, we expose our ''']''' to the world. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 09:31</small> | |||
| :::::*Oy. Settle down. If Christmas is so incontrovertibly vital that we can't switch it out of the "holidays" section, yet so irrelevant that mentioning it on more than one isolated area on the main page would be horrifyingly, devastatingly overemphasizing the importance of Christmas in human culture and history and betraying a deep and fundamental systemic bias which will open Misplaced Pages up to countless criticisms for how it ''dares'' to betray even a hint of a suggestion that Christmas has any more significance on December 25th than influenza or the omnipotence paradox does, then... '''let's have Christmas featured on December 24th!''' :3 Win-win situation! fufufu. -] 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' Christmas featured on Christmas? Kinda dull --] ] 09:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::My sentiments exactly. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, Christmas featured on October 13th, or any other totally random day, is kind of dull. At least this gives people something to think about. -] 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, Christmas on Christmas is dull. Every single other site on the internets will be having jingle bells that day. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 11:43</small> | |||
| :::::No sites like Misplaced Pages will. :) Misplaced Pages should strive to be unique and innovative in relation to its past and future events, it shouldn't change itself based on what totally unrelated websites may or may not do on a certain day. -] 12:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And the Omnipotence paradox doesn't? ] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Doy. '''Not in relation to December 25th''', no. Which is the whole of the subject of our discussion. Not one person has objected to featuring that article on the main page, only to featuring it on a day, the 25th, which has already been requested by another article that has plenty of valid reason for appearing on the page on that day—a day when there's absolutely no special significance for having "omnipotence paradox" in particular featured right then, and the only clear reasons for doing so are (1) to have a good laugh at the expense of those silly Christians, and (2) to ensure that Christmas doesn't get featured that day. Even if we don't feature Christmas on the 25th, who's to say that some other great FA idea to feature on the 25ths won't come up in the month between now and then? But by then we'll have arbitrarily decided on omnipotence paradox, and it will be too late. The only point of nominating that article for that day is out of spite for Christians (derived from Misplaced Pages's systemic bias against mainstream beliefs and concepts in general), out of a desire to make a ] focused against a specific religious group (not because the article's to appear on the 25th, but because such great ''lengths'' are taken to make it appear on the 25th, an arbitrary day that won't be around for a month), and as a tactic to ensure that Christmas doesn't get to be on the main page on that day (which is unnecessary, just opposing this vote would be enough). There's no actual significance between December 25th and the omnipotence paradox that I can see; the date is never mentioned anywhere on that page. The point of the nomination is just to help gather support for opposing Christmas on the 25th; that's why the person who started the nomination began it by messaging the Talk pages of a whole ''mass'' of Wikipedians who self-identify as atheists (including myself), in order to heavily tilt the scales in favor of banning Christmas from being featured on Christmas. An agenda is clearly at play here, whereas no agenda at all was at play in nominating Christmas to be featured on the 25th, just an innocent desire to make a witty connection between the article and the event it describes. I don't mind the actual occurrence of having that article on the 25th, as long as Christmas is featured a few days before Christmas (after would just make us look like sloppy fools), but the devious tactics, dramatics, and great lengths gone to for such a trivial difference of opinion is a bit off-putting. Where's your holiday spirit? ;F -] 12:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strong oppose'''. Having a holiday highlighted on its own day is off-putting to those who do not celebrate it, as well as simply tacky. ] is a much more balanced article for December 25. - ] 10:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I don't see why having a holiday highlighted on the day it's on is any more off-putting than having ''Arrested Development'' featured on December 5th just because that's the day it starts airing new episodes again, nor why holiday mood swings should be of concern to an encyclopedia's layout choices. It's just an amusing and interesting juxtaposition that adds an extra level of "oh, I get it" to an otherwise random selection of FAs. It's neither worth going to extreme lengths to force into happening (like spending months and months working on getting the FA's time aligned right) nor worth going to extreme lengths to force into ''not'' happening (like battling against its being featured on a day when it's especially significant when there's no special reason for it not to be). With how minor the potential layout redundancy really is, a lot of this seems to just be Political Correctness causing us to squander a unique and useful opportunity... Cheh. -] 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly agree''' - seems like an appropriate date too. I strongly disagree with Korpios's comments - I'd find it equally apt to feature holidays of other religions on the main page too - we live in a multidenominational world with many religions, after all, ] 11:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Exactly so. Treating Christmas differently than we'd treat any other anniversary, like the Rosa Parks example given above, is what will ''really'' demonstrate our systemic bias, more so than doing simply as simple and charmingly well-timed as featuring the Christmas article on Christmas. No babies will die if we make a temporal pun like that, and Misplaced Pages will not fall into ruin if we have Christmas in the Featured Article box and just leave "'''December 25:'''" at the top of the "selected anniversaries" section instead of mentioning any specific holiday on that line (as is often done). The world won't end if we do something ''new'', just this once, rather than always sticking to the same exact routine every year. -] 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Of course you'll support all other religions getting their own way now, but what about when their time actually comes? Making a special case for Christmas only reveals our systematic bias, our "sensitivity" to certain religions. Next time you say "]!" rather than something blasphemous, think about where that phrase came from. — <small>]] • 2005-11-28 11:28</small> | |||
| ***I've stated quite clearly what my thoughts are on this - namely that it is appropriate to have a featured article relating to a holiday appear on the front page on the day on which that holiday takes place. It is you who is arguing that Christmas should be a special case (namely that we should take the opportunity of it occurring to highlight a page that could be uncomfortable to Christians, or which, by the juxtaposition of dates, would be seen as taking a snide swipe at Christians), not me, ] 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***I see also that you have spammed around 60 other Wikipedians who you believe are willing to come here to support your cause. Why go Christian-bashing? Can't you let Christians enjoy their celebrations in peace and allow your article to be featured on another, less sensitive day? ] 12:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose'''. The ] should be used on December 25. ] 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. It will already be on the mainpage at the anniversaries. ] <sup>]]]]]</sup> 11:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Good point, Gerrit. ] (]) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' (for what it's worth; see below). Having ] on Christmas Day is impossibly twee. ] (]) 13:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh, for goodness sake. This is '''not''' a "''vote''". ] will make his decision, and ''n'' people saying "''support''" and ''m'' people saying "''oppose''" is not going to help very much. I'm sure he knows the arguments on either side pretty well: enough already. -- ] ] 13:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Fair point. ] (]) 13:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Thanks. Thinking further, surely it would be much more interesting to put ] on the front page on ] (the night upon which, according to our article, many children in Germany put shoes out on window sills) or ] (when a number of Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas). It would be an interesting counterpoint to put the paradox article on the day after. -- ] ] 13:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 141: | Line 64: | ||
| ] 18:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | ] 18:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| '''Support''', this article was approved on October 9. Perhaps the day after it is featured on the main page, you could have the long waiting article on the ] too...it would be apropos since Gen. O'Connor was a member:>--] 01:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''', December 8 (start of Operation Compass) would probably be a good date. --'']'' <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds like a good idea, Compass is certainly what O'Connor is mainly remembered for. ] 10:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
Revision as of 14:10, 28 November 2005
Archives:(of Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article, which redirects here) Template talk:Feature/archive1, Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/archive 2
Requests
Please place new requests at the TOP of the list. The order should be newest requests (top) to oldest requests (bottom). New additions should be at the top, so they're easier to spot.
Omnipotence paradox (To be featured on December 25)
The omnipotence paradox is a philosophical paradox which arises when attempting to apply logic to the notion of an omnipotent being. The paradox is based around the question of whether or not an omnipotent being is able to perform actions that would limit its own omnipotence, thus becoming non-omnipotent. Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence.
Yuan (surname)
Given the difficulties of finding a date for a surname article, December 12 would be very appropriate. That's when the most famous Yuan of modern times, Yuan Shikai, infamously declared himself emperor in 1915, briefly restoring the monarchy in China. 12 December 2005 is the 90th anniversary. Yeu Ninje 12:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
.png)
Yuan is a common Chinese surname, ranked 33rd in China by population. It originated from a noble family of the ancient state of Chen, in what is now eastern Henan province. From the Han Dynasty onwards, the name has been associated with two aristocratic clans, that of Ru'nan and Chen. Historically, the name has been fast growing among Han Chinese, and has also been taken up by a number of non-Chinese ethnic groups. The surname is now held by more than 6.5 million people worldwide, and makes up 0.54% of the population of mainland China. Although growth has tapered off in the past six centuries, the Yuan name is still relatively widespread throughout China, as well as among overseas Chinese, with heaviest per capita concentrations in the Yangtze Delta region of central coastal China. Because that area has historically exhibited high clan consciousness, there exist a large number of Yuan genealogies, most of which are now held in public institutions. Renewed interest in ancestry among Yuan clansmen has largely been encouraged by the PRC government.
Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton, PRS (25 December 1642 (OS) – 20 March 1727 (OS) / 4 January, 1643 (NS) – 31 March 1727 (NS)) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, inventor, philosopher and alchemist. A man of profound genius, he is widely regarded as the most influential scientist in history. He is associated with the scientific revolution and the advancement of heliocentrism.
Among his scientific accomplishments, Newton wrote the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, wherein he described universal gravitation and, via his laws of motion, laid the groundwork for classical mechanics. With Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz he shares credit for the development of differential calculus. Newton was the first to promulgate a set of natural laws that could govern both terrestrial motion and celestial motion, and is credited with providing mathematical substantiation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which he expanded by arguing that orbits (such as those of comets) could be elliptic, hyperbolic, or parabolic.
Newton was the first to realise that the spectrum of colours observed when white light passed through a prism is inherent in the white light and not added by the prism (as Roger Bacon had claimed in the 13th century), and also notably argued that light is composed of particles.
Newton also developed a law of cooling, proved the binomial theorem, and discovered the principles of conservation of momentum and angular momentum. Borisblue 06:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Warsaw Uprising
How about scheduling Warsaw Uprising (previously at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/September 6, 2004) for August 1, 2006? Not that we didn't have time for it :) Halibutt 07:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- What's the point of having it as today's featured article again? Particularly when there are a number of FAs that have never been on the main page listed below, and more created every week. Leithp (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe the rules are that any given article must wait at least five years after a TFA appearance before they are eligible for TFA again. Saravask 16:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I was wrong. I got the idea that Raul654 said that at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Featured_Articles_returning_to_the_Main_Page (which I read a while back). But this is not a rule; instead it was a proposed rule put forth by someone else. Raul654 turned it down. Saravask 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rule? Where? (I mean, clearly we have lots of FAs that have not been on the Main Page and no sign of running out any time soon, so there is no need to repeat. OTOH, I think the de-featured, re-written, re-featured Hubble Space Telescope has a decent claim for a second go on the Main Page). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a rule. It's just a policy I have chosen to adopt. I do not feel we should be refeaturing articles at this time. Raul654 04:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rule? Where? (I mean, clearly we have lots of FAs that have not been on the Main Page and no sign of running out any time soon, so there is no need to repeat. OTOH, I think the de-featured, re-written, re-featured Hubble Space Telescope has a decent claim for a second go on the Main Page). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
W. Mark Felt
The "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, which made FA a few weeks ago. PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Christmas (To be featured on December 25)
Christmas (literally, the Mass of Christ) is a holiday in the Christian calendar, usually observed on December 25, which celebrates the birth of Jesus. According to the Christian gospels, Jesus was born to Mary in Bethlehem, where she and her husband Joseph had traveled to register in the Roman census. Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Most of the familiar traditional practices and symbols of Christmas, such as the Christmas tree, the Christmas ham, the Yule Log, holly, mistletoe, and the giving of presents, were adapted or appropriated by Christian missionaries from the earlier pagan midwinter feast of Yule. In predominantly Christian countries, Christmas has become the most economically significant holiday of the year, and it is also celebrated as a secular holiday in many countries with small Christian populations.
Surprised this hasn't been featured on the front page yet. Please consider featuring this article on its day of observance (December 25). Brisvegas 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Richard O'Connor
Sir Richard O'Connor (August 21, 1889 – June 17, 1981) was a British Army general who commanded the Western Desert Force (WDF) in the early years of World War II. O'Connor was the field commander for Operation Compass, in which he and the WDF completely destroyed a much larger Italian army. This victory nearly drove the Axis from Africa entirely, and led Adolf Hitler to send the Deutsches Afrikakorps under Erwin Rommel, to try and reverse the situation.
O'Connor was later captured and spent over two years in an Italian prisoner of war camp for senior officers. He made a number of escape attempts with General Sir Philip Neame and Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Carton De Wiart, and was eventually successful. O'Connor commanded VIII Corps in Normandy in 1944 and later during Operation Market Garden. In 1945 he was general officer in command, Eastern Command in India, and then headed the North West Army in the closing days of British rule in the subcontinent. He held the highest level of knighthood in four different orders of chivalry.
Leithp 18:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
TARDIS
Just got featured status, has enough "real-world" appeal to be on the front page. Date doesn't matter, but November 23 might be nice.--Sean Jelly Baby? 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- D'oh. Lost out to a Gwen Stefani song ;) Any other date any seven days after 23 November would work, as those were all Saturdays ;) 30 November, 7 December, 14 December...etc. Oh and support :) --JohnDBuell 12:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Hero of Ukraine
I am not sure if you need anything specific to be done for each article to get on the main page, but just let me know and I can fix it up for you. Zach (Sound Off) 07:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Phishing
In computing, phishing is a form of social engineering, characterised by fraudulent attempts to acquire sensitive information, such as passwords and credit card details. This is done by masquerading as a trustworthy person or business in an apparently official electronic communication, such as an email or instant message. The term phishing was coined by crackers attempting to "fish" for accounts from unsuspecting AOL members; ph is a common hacker replacement for f, and is a nod to an older form of hacking known as "phone phreaking". The first recorded mention of phishing is the program AOHell's "CC/PW Fisher". The term has also appeared in the printed edition of the hacker newsletter "2600 Magazine" in the fall of 1995, and in the alt.2600 hacker newsgroup in January 1996.
--ZeWrestler 14:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it did appear earlier in the printed zine, with the first mention I can find being in Fall 1995. It was also in use around 1994 in the AOHell program's "CC/PW Fisher" first seen in version 2.0 Beta 5 (but also mentioned in 3.0's documentation) it later became "Phisher" by version 3.5 released in mid-late 1994. ALKIVAR™
01:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Carding and spoofing are not synonomous with Phishing, Carding is selling merchandise purchased with a stolen card. Spoofing is pretending to be one thing while being something else. While related these subjects are not the same. ALKIVAR™ 03:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Carding and spoofing are not synonomous with Phishing, Carding is selling merchandise purchased with a stolen card. Spoofing is pretending to be one thing while being something else. While related these subjects are not the same. ALKIVAR™
Old FAs
Hey Raul, I have taken the liberty of making a list of the FAs that were not on the Main Page as of August 18, 2004 and have still not been there, and are still listed. I sincerely hope you are giving priority to these.
- Quatermass and the Pit
- Louis Armstrong
- Roy Orbison
- Igor Stravinsky
- 2004 Democratic National Convention
- Charles Graner
- Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
- Privy Council
Tynwald Day- Ralph Yarborough
- Hereditary peer
- Order of the Thistle
- Olympic Games
- ASCII
- C programming language
- Java programming language
- Markup language
- Phonograph cylinder
- Quantum computer
- Telephone exchange
-- 
Earl Andrew - talk 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I know people like to have recent FAs on the front page, but can we recognise some more of these old ones too, please? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Banging my drum again, but there are now lists of the featured articles by date promoted, also listing if (and when) they were on the front page: see, for example, Misplaced Pages:Featured_articles_nominated_in_2003. The older ones surely deserve their day in the sun. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- And again - go on, some of these deserve it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
RSS feed
We should mention the RSS feed somewhere, probably as a link to Misplaced Pages:Syndication. See Misplaced Pages:General complaints#RSS Feed for Featured Articles. Bovlb 14:37:25, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
FA front page templates
Here are two templates that should be of interest to those with new FA articles either about to appear on the front page or that have appeared there. Simply insert the date the article appeared/will appear on the front page and paste the template into the talk page.
Template:Mainpage date to come
and
Thanks to Hydnjo for coming up with this.--Alabamaboy 19:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- As much as I would love full credit, this template is actually the result of a collaboration between Rick Block and myself. hydnjo talk 22:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
2006 archive
I'm going to create the 2006 TFA archive sometime in the next few weeks to a month. If anybody has any ideas on improvments, then please tell me about them. :) --mav 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)