Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:50, 11 June 2013 editBencherlite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users65,622 edits →Nonspecific date 1: schedule Hiram Wesley Evans← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:37, 5 January 2025 edit undoLlewee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,907 edits →Summary chartTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to section|Summary chart|Skip to nominations}}
<noinclude> <noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions}} {{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions}}
{{User:Dispenser/Checklinks/config|interval=weekly|generator=bold}} {{User:Dispenser/Checklinks/config|interval=weekly|generator=bold}}
] ]
] ]
]
]
]</noinclude> </noinclude>
__NOTOC__ __NOTOC__
== Summary chart == == Summary chart ==
Line 12: Line 13:
}} }}


{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders"
! scope="col" style="width: 8em;" | Date ! scope="col" style="width: 10em;" | Date
! scope="col" style="width: 12em;" | Article ! scope="col" style="width: 20em;" | Article
! scope="col" | Points
! scope="col" style="width: 20em;" | Notes ! scope="col" style="width: 20em;" | Notes
! scope="col" | Supports<sup>†</sup> ! scope="col" | Supports<sup>†</sup>
! scope="col" | Opposes<sup>†</sup> ! scope="col" | Opposes<sup>†</sup>
|- |-
! scope="row" | ]<!-- Please do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore -->

| ]
! scope="row" | ]<!-- Do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore -->
|
| ]
| 1 or 2
| n/a
| 4
| 0 | 0
| 2
|- |-
! scope="row" | ]<!-- Do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore --> ! scope="row" | ]<!-- Please do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore -->
| |
| |
| |
| |
|-
! scope="row" | ]<!-- Please do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore -->
| ]
| 100th birthday March 5. NAIA National Championship is March 20 to March 25.
| 1
| |
|- |-
! scope="row" | ]<!-- Do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore --> ! scope="row" | ]<!-- Please do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore -->
| ] | ]
| 2 |
| 1
| Nothing similar in 6 months
| 2 |
| 0
|- |-
! scope="row" | ]<!-- Do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore --> ! scope="row" | ]<!-- Please do not remove this or the underlying fields even if no article is nominated here; it's a pain to restore -->
|
| ]
| 2 |
|
| Nothing similar in 6 months
| 2 |
| 0
|- |-
! scope="row" | ]
|-style="border-top:4px solid #ccc" <!-- Please leave this line alone -->
| ]
! scope="row" | ]
| 130th birthday
| ]
| 1 | 1
|
| date relevance (1), 2+ years FA (2), recent similar article (-2)
|-
! scope="row" | ]
| ]
| 130th birthday
| 1 | 1
|
|-
! scope="row" | ]
| ]
| 10th anniversary of release
| 1 | 1
|
|- |-
! scope="row" | ]
|-style="border-top:4px solid #ccc" <!-- Please leave this line alone -->
| ]
! scope="row" | ]
| 5th anniversary of suspension
| ]
| 8 | 1
|
| date relevance (6), no recent similar article (2)
| 29
| 3

|- |-
! scope="row" | ]
| ]
| 15th anniversary of release
| 1
|
|-
! scope="row" | ]
| '']''
| 20th anniversary of release
| 1
|

|} |}
<sup>†</sup> 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.
{{-}}


<!--Below is an explanation of how to fill in the table
== Nonspecific date nominations ==
=== Nonspecific date 1 ===


|-
=== Nonspecific date 2 ===
! scope="row" | ]

| ]
=== Nonspecific date 3 ===
| notes
<div style="width: 55%; background-color: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #cef2e0; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;">
| number of supporters
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">]
| number of opposers
</div>
-->
<div>
<sup>†</sup> Tally may not be up to date. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.
The ''']''' took place in ] on January 12. The ] incumbent, ], had been appointed by Governor ] on March&nbsp;5, 1897 to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of ]; the appointment was only good until the legislature met and made its own choice. Republicans kept their majority in the election that November, apparently assuring Hanna's election once the new body met in January 1898. However, before the legislative session, the ] allied with a number of Republicans, seeking to defeat Hanna, and took control of both houses of the legislature. The coalition decided on Cleveland Mayor ] as their candidate the day before the balloting began. Three Republican state representatives who had voted with the Democrats to organize the legislature switched sides and voted for Hanna, who triumphed with a bare majority. Bribery was alleged; legislative leaders complained to the ], which took no action.{{TFAFULL|United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898}}</div></div>
{{-}}

Just keeping the process busy. Probably a couple of points someplace or other, we've certainly never had a legislative election to the Senate.--] (]) 02:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''', interesting article relating to politicians long since no longer alive, however even though they are dead and passed on and ceased to be, it is historically educational for readers, students, educators, and editors, alike. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 06:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

=== Nonspecific date 4 ===
<div style="width: 55%; background-color: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #cef2e0; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">]
</div>
<div>
The ''']''' was a ] tour across Canada of ]'s '']'', a play about ]. The tour was co-produced by Burnt Thicket Theatre and Raise Their Voice and was directed by ]. The five-person cast featured ], ], ], ], and ]. Despite the fact that ''She Has a Name'' is set in Southeast Asia, the producers deliberately ] mostly actors who were not of ] to avoid the impression that human trafficking happens only in Asia. Panel discussions were held after the Saturday matinées during the tour to raise awareness about ] and elsewhere. ] (ABW) partnered with Raise Their Voice throughout the tour; while ''She Has a Name'' toured across Canada to raise awareness about human trafficking, ABW raised money to help women and children who had been ] as part of ]. ] of the performances that employed stars ranged between 3 and 5 stars out of 5. {{TFAFULL|2012 tour of She Has a Name}}</div></div>
I believe this blurb has 2 or 3 points. There has never been a TFA about human trafficking, nor has there been one about a theatre tour. I also haven't seen any similar articles featured on the main page for the past several months. ] (]) 03:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''', high quality article. High encyclopedic value. High educational value. I believe that {{user|Neelix}} is correct that there has never been a TFA about ], and it is an important topic for readers and educators alike to learn more about. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 04:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

== Specific date nominations ==
===June 28===
====John Young Brown (1835-1904)====

<div style="width: 55%; background-color: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #cef2e0; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">]
</div>
<div>
''']''' (1835–1904) represented ] in the ] and served as its ] ]. He was first elected to the House in 1859, despite not being old enough to serve. An unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate in 1871, he was elected to the House in 1872 and served three consecutive terms. During his final term, he was ] for excoriating ] Representative ]. He was elected governor in 1891, but his administration, and the state Democratic Party, were split between his fellow ] supporters and supporters of the ], and he accomplished little. The deaths of two of his children diverted his attention from politics, but a group of Democrats unhappy with party nominee ] nominated him for governor in 1899. After winning a ], Goebel was assassinated, and Brown served as defense counsel for accused assassination conspirator ]. {{TFAFULL|John Y. Brown (1835–1904)}}</div></div>

Governor of Kentucky, 1 pt for day of birth, 2 pts for 2+ years featured,
*'''Oppose''': ], the *2nd* Governor of Kentucky, is scheduled for June 7 and is a little too close in scope for this to appear quite so soon. At least in my opinion. ] <sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;22:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

::Yes, this happened because Garrard, first suggested in January, was then too close to someone else and moved to here ;) --] (]) 22:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:::The article still gets the 2-point penalty for a recent similar article, so '''1 point'''. ]] 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
*Edited the blurb to highlight the most important facts of his life; it may be just a hair too long. If this isn't chosen for the requested date because of the proximity to Garrard, at least the blurb is ready for any future nominations. Thanks for thinking of my work! ] <sup><span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ])</span></sup> 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the point penalties are the bureaucracy of the page, the support/opposes are the flesh and blood responses of people who care about main page. I'd consider opposing having two governors of American states in the same month. That they were governors of the ''same state'' makes this a definite oppose. If this was a significant anniversary, I might consider it, but it can run next year, or on the date of his death, or first election etc. And I note that the coming January 11th will be the 110th anniversary of his death. --] (]) 10:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

===July 13===
====History of Gibraltar====

<div style="width: 55%; background-color: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #cef2e0; padding: 1em; padding-top: 0.5em; color: black;">
<div style="float: left; margin-right: 0.9em">
]
</div>
<div>
The ''']''' ''(pictured in 1782)'' spans over 2,900 years. First inhabited 50,000 years ago by the ], ] may have been one of their last refuges before their extinction. To the ] and ] it was one of the ] at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea. ] from North Africa ], calling it ''Jebel al-Tarik'', later corrupted into ''Gibraltar''. ] contested it and eventually ], after which it became part of ]. An Anglo-Dutch force ]. It was ceded to ] under the ], signed on 13 July 1713. Spain unsuccessfully besieged Gibraltar in ], ] and ]; its status is ]. The territory became a British ] and an important trading post and base for the ]. During the Second World War it was ], controlling access to the Mediterranean. Gibraltar's ] have led to it becoming "one of the ] and fought over places in Europe." Today it is a self-governing ] with an ] based largely on financial services, shipping and ]. {{TFAFULL|History of Gibraltar}}
</div>
</div>

8 points: 6 points for the tercentenary of the Treaty of Utrecht, the anniversary for which the article was written (as it marks the point at which Gibraltar became a British territory) plus 2 points for nothing similar in the last 6 months (or in fact ever).

This is the first featured article for ], which I established back in 2007, and as far as I know would be the first-ever TFA on Gibraltar. For the avoidance of doubt, I originally wrote this article 3 years ago and got it up to FA standard to mark the tercentenary of the Treaty of Utrecht this July - there has been no external stimulus or involvement with the article. WikiProject Gibraltar has never been the subject of any controversy whatsoever and needless to say, there are no restrictions on Gibraltar-related TFAs, as there have never been any before. ] (]) 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' even though my cruise ship picked up the norovirus there to the (seemingly) lasting misery of other people last December, I will assume good faith here, and that the colony does not routinely engage in germ warfare. Or other things frowned upon by Misplaced Pages--] (]) 15:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
:* Just be glad it wasn't ], Gibraltar used to be notorious for that! ] (]) 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
::*I was told I had to be inoculated against yellow fever when going to the Falklands. Which caused me some puzzlement (given the climate), until I realised that the yellow fever wasn't actually on the Falklands, it was because we had to stop over at that other sort-of bastion of empire, Ascension Island. Even though it was only for refuelling! --] (]) 21:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. High quality article. High educational value. High encyclopedic value. Extremely relevant date. Unique topic. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' given the ] around Misplaced Pages main page appearances of this topic. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
:* Jayen466 fails to mention that he has been leading a campaign against running Gibraltar-related content on the Main Page, which culminated in him proposing a total moratorium on all such content in February (which was rejected by 27 votes to 2). He advocates an extreme view that any mention of Gibraltar on the Main Page is somehow "promotional". There are currently temporary restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs which require such DYKs to be reviewed by two editors, checked for COI/promotional issues and run at a rate of no more than one per day. No such restrictions apply to TFAs, nor would they ever have been necessary. There has never before been a Gibraltar TFA. The article has been through a ] and ] involving nine editors. At no stage has there has been any suggestion of COI or promotional issues, nor has Jayen466 made any case that there are any such issues with the article's content. I think it would certainly have been spotted after full GA and FA reviews in which, I note, Jayen466 played no part. I would also add that this article has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia; it was written two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed, for a WikiProject that was established five years earlier. ] (]) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
::* Total moratorium for the next decade is a great idea. That will reduce Gibraltar's home page appearances on Misplaced Pages to a level commensurate with Gibraltar's real world presence and significance: tiny. Misplaced Pages is not for advertising by a micro-country, it's travel industry, nor anybody else. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Nice to have some more geography here, rather than all those tedious warships! ;-) ] (]) 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Lovely article, just notify the airport and Gibraltar pollution control in advance, I anticipate a sudden dramatic increase of flights to the rock the next day...♦ ] 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Ticks just about every box. --] (]) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Nice, a tercentenary is a really auspicious date. It fits all of the reasons for TFA. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I am tired of seeing Gibraltar on the home page of Misplaced Pages. I think it would be best not to place any Gibraltar articles there. Let's show the full range of articles in Misplaced Pages, and stop over-representing narrow interests. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
**Gibraltar is part of the "full range of articles in Misplaced Pages", and we've never had a TFA. Rather than run three Indonesian films in two months (we have three already featured that haven't run, after all)?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
***Gibraltar has had an endless crapload of DYKs. There's been severe abuse in the form of a major public relations campaign involving editors sub rasa. Actions have consequences. We should not reward corruption. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
****So, between the lines you're saying that we should punish uninvolved users for the actions of others? Something's backwards with that argument. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*****I don't give a damn about punishing editors. Wikipeda is here for our readers. Home page appearances are not prizes given out to reward editors. When the home page has been abused as a billboard for the government of Gibraltar's paid publicity, we need to be senstve and stop placing Gibraltar content there for a long time, until everybody forgets, and an occasional article can appear without people saying, "Look those corrupt idiots at Misplaced Pages are back to promoting Gibraltar again." ] <sup>]</sup> 10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*****I'm neither pro nor anti Gibraltar, and I just comment here that though I look at the front page every day, I am not conscious of a surfeit of Gibraltar articles. I can't recall any in recent months, or indeed earlier. Would Jehochmann like to remind us of the occasions when what he elegantly calls the "crapload" appeared? ] (]) 10:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
******Are you feigning ignorance, or are you really unaware of this scandal: ]. Read the article and address whether it is now appropriate to put more Gibraltar content on the home page of Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*******Come, come. Let us have no more unsubstantiated assertions. Kindly identify the "crapload" if it exists. ] (]) 10:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
********Come, come, let us stop playing the silly game called ]. I've clearly identified what I'm talking about. If you refuse to address the significance of the Gibraltarpedia scandal, I'm not going to waste my time talking to somebody who ignores and belittles my concerns. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*********It's a perfectly simple request. If, as you assert, there has been a "crapload", then surely you can identify the occasions when the said defecatory consignments have been deposited on the front page in recent months. I am sure we could all hear you, but you refuse to say. All but one of the other contributors above have supported. Are we all being misled? Please feel free to enlighten us. – ] (]) 10:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
**********Did you read ]? It's all right there. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
***********Three points: this article was written in 2010 for WikiProject Gibraltar, founded in 2007. It has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia, which was established in 2012. Second, it was not written to promote anything. It was written to resolve a dispute within WikiProject Gibraltar over the article that is now ] (), and it was brought up to FA standard to commemmorate the 300th anniversary of Gibraltar's cession to Britain. Third, the controversy over Gibraltarpedia is essentially over. The last news item on that issue (which Jayen466 had a major role in prompting) was published in February 2013. By July 13, that will be 6 months in the past. ] (]) 11:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Good choice for a relevant date and an unusual TFA topic. The article itself is great too, from what I recall of the GA review. ] (]) 03:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:* It's definitely improved since then, thanks to our FA reviewers. ] (]) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' A fine article, and a most timely occasion for it to appear. A topic of wide appeal, too, unlike some that are of national rather than international interest. ] (]) 09:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:* Wide appeal? You are kidding, right? Why is Gibraltar appearing on the home page of Misplaced Pages more often than New York City? Which do you think should get more coverage? We should not carry on the past corruption. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:**Certainly of wide appeal. Gibraltar is of interest to people in the UK, Spain, the rest of the EU, people with interests in military history, naval history etc etc. I don't know why you mention New York city but it is perhaps less so. ] (]) 10:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*I mention New York City because it is a major center of population, arts, business, history, and it has received just a fraction of the attention of Gibraltar. This is a severe violation of ] and ]. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote the city, state or country that lavishes the most attention, favors and money on our editors. Clearly, some of you don't get that. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::**More unsubstantiated assertions. Please provide the facts: the number of Gibraltar front page appearances, say, since the start of this year? ] (]) 10:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::***More than 10. You are welcome to spend half a day going through the relevant history to come up with an exact count. Did you read ] yet? ] <sup>]</sup> 10:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::****Interesting. Perhaps there is indeed possibly something in what you say about DYKs. Happily it is plainly inapplicable to this article, which as we have established above, is of impeccable provenance and has been throughly examined at GA and FAC. I don't really understand the current DYK process, but I think you might like to raise the DYK question there, rather than here. ] (]) 11:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*****He already did, only about 3 weeks ago - see ]. Not a single person agreed with him or his demand for a total moratorium. There have been, I think, 6 Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page in the last three months. Nobody but him seems to think that an average of 2 a month on the same topic (out of some 4,500 DYKs over the same period) poses some kind of mortal threat to Misplaced Pages. I might add that none of the DYKs has attracted any kind of controversy whatsoever, and one of them, which I wrote, was only a few hundred page views off making the list of all-time most-viewed DYKs - there's no doubt that they're of interest to a wide audience. ] (]) 11:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::******If a group of editors (or one very busy editor) were to produce a series of high quality articles on New York City I'd really like to see them appear on the main page as well as the articles on Gibraltar. ] (]) 12:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

*{{A note}} Comments have been made in the past that potentially controversial TFA nominations should be given wider publicity to ensure a greater community input into the decision in advance, rather than present a ''fait accompli''. As this is such a nomination, I am leaving notes at ], ], ] and ]. That should draw the attention of a good cross-section of editors. ]] 10:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


==Nonspecific date nominations==
{{cot|Lengthy discussion on number of DYKs}}
I have done as Jehochman suggested (took 25 minutes) and there are eight DYK mentions of Gibraltar this year, three of them arguably relevant to his complaint, ''viz'':
*4 June – substantive mention: road to Gibraltar
*4 May – mentioned in ]
*12 February – substantive mention in ]
The other five are mentions in articles on anthropology, naval history, military history (x2) and art: namely:
*8 May – article on ]
*27 May – mentioned as location in ]
*29 April – ]
*31 March – mentioned in ]
*29 January ]
Other front page mentions this year:
*News: Gibraltar football team is accepted as a full UEFA member
*Anniversaries: three Provisional IRA volunteers who had been killed in Gibraltar ten days earlier; and SS Utopia accidentally collided with the battleship HMS Anson in the Bay of Gibraltar
None of which seems to me to support any kind of conspiracy theory or charges of bias and – I quote – "corruption" among WP editors. ] (]) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:Sorry you had to do that Tim, I posted more comprehensive figures at ] in response to earlier complaints from Jehochman. Please see my comments there and immediately above your latest post here. ] (]) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::Convenient choice of dates, Tim riley. Could you look at the figures for all of 2012? You'll see evidence of extreme manipulation and abuse. One year later is too soon to forget, and too soon to let some of the same players have their way with Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


===Nonspecific date 1===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
Come on. 8 DYK mentions of Gibraltar this year?? 13 Gibraltar hooks ran in January 2013 alone:
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/All-American Bitch}}
===Nonspecific date 2===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Mariah Carey}}


===Nonspecific date 3===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2013/January
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Leroy Chollet}}


===Nonspecific date 4===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
*31 ... that ] (pictured) is named after the man who found it when he fell off the Rock of Gibraltar?
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/History of infant schools in Great Britain}}
*29 ... that the ] came to a sudden end in March 1350 when King Alfonso XI of Castile (pictured) became the only monarch to die in the Black Death?
*28 ... that ] was so successful during the Great Siege of Gibraltar that the British decided to construct what became Rock Gun Battery above it?
*27 ... that the keys of ] are a symbol of office of the Governor of Gibraltar?
*24 ... that the ] (members pictured in working dress) was the British Army's first unit of military artificers and labourers?
*23 ... that the ] proposed that a main road in Gibraltar should be Devlin's instead of ]?
*20 ... that during the eighteenth century, guards posted at Middle Hill Battery on Middle Hill, Gibraltar, to prevent desertion sometimes deserted themselves?
*19 ... that ], the one-eyed son of Moroccan sultan Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Othman, captured Gibraltar in 1333 but fell victim to a Castilian ambush six years later?
*18 ... that the 9.2-inch gun of ], one of fourteen once mounted on Gibraltar, was moved to Imperial War Museum Duxford after its role was taken over by Exocet missiles?
*8 ... that ] was built in the mistaken belief that it would enable the garrison at Gibraltar to spy on ships massing at Cadiz?
*6 ... that the top secret, World War II dual observation post of ] was constructed in the tunnel system of ]?
*4 ... that ], who served as chief engineer throughout the ], was later depicted in two paintings of the siege by John Singleton Copley and George Carter?
*1 ... that the Spanish nobleman and soldier ] played a key role in improving the defences of Gibraltar in the 17th century?


===Nonspecific date 5===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
5 Gibraltar hooks ran in the first half of February:


===Nonspecific date 6===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2013/February


===Nonspecific date 7===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
*12 ... that ] in Gibraltar only emerged in the 20th century because its governors gave priority to its role as a military fortress?
*8 ... that ] was boosted when the territory's first marina (Ocean Village pictured) was built in 1961?
*6 ... that the 9.2 inch Mark X gun at ] (pictured) was described as one of the "crowning glories" of the defences of Gibraltar?
*4 ... that although the ] ended with Muhammed IV of Granada still in control of Gibraltar, he was assassinated by his nobles soon after?
*2 ... that ] was the last surviving member of a six-man team who volunteered to be sealed in a World War II observation post discovered by the ] in 1997?


===Nonspecific date 8===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
That's when I stopped counting. Perhaps someone would like to go through the remaining months with a fine-toothed comb. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 17:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


===Nonspecific date 9===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
:What you are not mentioning is that all of those DYKs were nominated between October-December 2012 but didn't run until 2013 because of huge delays caused by the current restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs. The figures for March, April, May and June are 0, 3, 2 and 1 DYKs to date. That's 6 DYKs in the last 3 months, out of approximately 4,500 DYKs that have run over the same period. If you think 6 DYKs in 3 months are excessive then you are frankly crazy. ] (]) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::Your figures usually turn out to be wrong, and always in the same way. And so it is in this case. There are 21 DYKs a day. That makes 630 or 651 a month. Less than 2000 over three months is not "approximately 4500". Even a cursory look at the DYKs for March and April and May, without checking for Gibraltarpedia hooks that don't mention Gibraltar, shows:
::*31 March: ... that a view of the Rock of Gibraltar (pictured) has hung since the 18th century in a lady's art gallery in the Netherlands?
::*12 April: ... that there have been fourteen sieges of Gibraltar, making it one of the most fought-over places in Europe?
::*14 April: ... that King's Bastion (model pictured), instrumental in defending Gibraltar during its Great Siege, was later used as a generating station and is now a leisure centre?
::*29 April: ... that the Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar ended in defeat for France and Spain, which lost 10,000 men while the English and Dutch defenders lost only 400?
::*8 May: ... that the Neanderthals of Gibraltar (male pictured) were among the first to be discovered and may have been among the last surviving members of their species?
::*13 May: ... that the workers' association CITYPEG has criticised both the Gibraltarian and Spanish governments for their policies affecting Spanish workers in Gibraltar?
::*27 May: ... that the destroyer HMS Versatile once rammed and almost sliced a submarine in half during a military exercise off the coast of Gibraltar?
::Then there were also hooks in in April mentioning the "gardens of Gibraltar in Wilmington, Delaware" (by Prioryman), and a hook mentioning that "Norwegians built Gibraltar's first school (pictured) in the 1860s?" (related to a school in Gibraltar, Wisconsin), part of an insider game to get the word "Gibraltar" onto the main page in order to poke fun at the situation; not a particularly mature response, but hey, this is Misplaced Pages. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 18:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Three DYKs for April, just as I said. I'm not counting the 31 March or 27 May ones because the articles weren't about Gibraltar. The hooks were incidental mentions from editors who didn't even know that there was any issue with mentioning Gibraltar in DYKs. Check the ] and as you'll see from the ] it wasn't treated as restricted. As for the "insider game", I guess you haven't cottoned on yet to the fact that it's intended to make you look foolish when you complain about it. So far it seems to be working 100%. ] (]) 18:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Of course we shouldn't count the 31 May hook. It only had a picture of the rock of Gibraltar, and was written by a ]. :)) I am quite aware of your schoolyard antics; I'll say my piece regardless. Best, ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cob}}


===Nonspecific date 10===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
*'''Support''' This is a fine article and significant anniversary, and its main page appearance should be a no-brainer. I'm really sick about the grumbling about Gibraltarpedia (I appreciate why some people were concerned, but think that the issue was blown way out of proportion and it's time for everyone to move on). ] (]) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' That the Gibraltarpedia ridiculousness is ''still'' going six months later is mindblowing and ridiculous. At a certain point, for certain editors, playing Gibraltar-related games seems to have become an obsession. Let's stop this silliness right now.]<br />—] (]) 12:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:* For the nth time, '''this has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia'''. The article was written two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed! ] (]) 13:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::* Just a question, Prioryman - Did the article in its CURRENT (or close to current) state exist 2 years before Gibraltarpedia, or was it improved during, or after Gibraltarpedia? From the way things are pointed out here, it appears to be the former. Also, when did the article become featured? ] (]) 23:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


===Nonspecific date 11===<!-- Please do not remove this header-->
{{cot|Another lengthy discussion on DYKs}}
::* How can it have "nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia" - it was by Victuallers on the 10th of February 2013, some time before he apparently ceased being "".] (]) 23:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*WikiProjects claiming articles written by others is nothing new on Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::**It was hardly claimed against Prioryman's will: . In fact, my recollection is that Prioryman took over from Victuallers at DYK when the latter was banned from continuing his work there. This is what leaves a funny taste in the mouth. Prioryman was the main engine of continuing the Gibraltarpedia main page push, in the face of widespread media criticism. It's a bit hard to decouple this nomination from that history, regardless of how worthy this article itself is. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 00:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::**Given Prioryman, the primary writer of the article says it has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia, shouldn't the Gibraltarpedia claim over the article be removed? ] (]) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::***WikiProjects are entitled to add their banners to articles. I've never objected to any member of a WikiProject adding their project's banner to an article I've written, so I'm not going to start objecting now. I would defend Gibraltarpedia's right to add their banner, just as I'd defend WikiProject Spain or WikiProject Military History's right. My point is that the article was written two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed, for reasons completely unrelated to anything Gibraltarpedia was set up to achieve. Gibraltarpedia was not involved in any way in the writing of the article and the timing of this TFA nomination is dictated solely by the Treaty of Utrecht anniversary, not by anything involving Gibraltarpedia or any events on the ground (I don't know of any real-world commemorations taking place - there may not be any, given that Spain is still pretty sore about it). Tom Morris, Jayen466 and most egregiously Jehochman have all claimed that it has something to do with Gibraltarpedia. It does not. ] (]) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::****Well, given that you essentially took over from Victuallers when he was banned from processing Gibraltar DYKs, ensuring that the stream of Gibraltar DYKs would continue, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that Gibraltarpedia is nothing to do with you. Just the other day , with regard to having another go at having the existing and very weak Gibraltar DYK restrictions lifted, "I'm planning to run a Gib-related TFA in July; the response to that should hopefully indicate whether the temperature has dropped sufficiently to make a lifting of the restrictions viable. Let's have another chat on this in about six weeks' time." To me it all looks the same: the same person pushing Gibraltar onto the front page, again and again. If someone else had written this article who was entirely unconnected to the Gibraltarpedia effort, and who had not made some sort of commitment to getting regular Gibraltar material onto the front page, my response might have been quite different. As it is, it is tainted to me. But consensus is leaning your way, with support from fellow DYK authors, so you shouldn't let that worry you. Regards, ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 08:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*****"with support from fellow DYK authors". Erm... ] has never (to my knowledge) self nominated at DYK, ] has not been involved with that project for almost two years, ] is at DYK perhaps twice a month (based on my previous experience); Demiurge and Dr. B are highly active at DYK. That's just from the first five supports, and looking below the majority of supporters are not active DYK writers. Facts, please.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 08:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::******Wehwalt has a list of over 70 DYKs , and it you usually do the nominations for him: "I've just completed (or at least good enough to be moved from userspace) a revised version of Eisenhower dollar. Want to do the usual on a DYK nom? It looks like 5x from here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)" I didn't even have Wehwalt in mind, but Gerda for example is well known as one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific DYK writers, going at a rate of one every three days, Hawkeye has about 100 DYKs, Resolute 80, Tomobe03 has close to 50, you have close to 500, Sturmvogel lists 239 on his subpage, and so forth. I don't think you can claim that DYK writers aren't well represented here, or that the average number of DYKs per support vote here corresponds to the community average. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 09:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*******Glad to see that Wehwalt has been getting some self noms, and note that some of these people got their DYKs well before the Gibraltarpedia issue (I think I've only had 120 in that time frame). I did not say that that "DYK writers aren't well represented here", but that (to paraphrase) "presently active DYK writers aren't well represented here"; many of them have DYKs, but not a significant amount in the past several months. Others are more active in the featured content area, or likely arrived here through the main page. That being said, what (if any) effect does having DYKs have on a person's opinion of ''this'' article, or Gibralatar in general (] and ] are both staunchly anti-Gibraltarpedia, but they each have nine DYKs)? I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by certain people with personal vendettas, which have been placed above content.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cob}}
*'''Support''', for exactly the same reasons Tom Morris opposes. Let's return to the status quo: Gibraltar is not to be treated any different than other locations, be they countries like Indonesia (mentioned / relevant to at least 2 TFAs so far this year and something like 65 DYKs), city states, or just plain cities&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''', great article meeting all TFA criteria - and set to appear at the three-centennary! The combination of the three does not come by that often, therefore supporting.--] (]) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this very nice article as TFA on a ''very'' relevant date. The Gibraltar issue has been dealt with at DYK, and the number of articles is not above that of any other topic which has an interested editor working diligently. Editors work on what they are interested in, and what this editor is interested in happens to be Gibraltar. If another editor wants to work on articles related to New York City (to use the example above), more power to them, and I'll support having their articles on the front page, too. ] (]) 13:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:* Some editors have been interested in Gibraltar because they've been paid off, or recruited by those were paid off. We should stand firmly against that sort of manipulation. This article might be perfectly good, and I am sure that you personally are 100% acting in good faith, but because of past manipulations, at the end of 2012 they were curtailed but not entirely stopped, we must be suspicious. It's become a test of wills: some of those who were corrupted want to keep bulling ahead as if that will prove they've done nothing wrong. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::*"]"...&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The reasoning of the opposers above (if you can call it that) is unconvincing. I see no evidence of a link between this and Gibraltarpedia. If the DYK issue has been dealt with, TFA is self-governing against overrepresentation. If they are neutral and up to standards, who cares what the motivation is for improving these articles? We are here to build an encyclopedia, are we not? And TFA is one method of encouraging people to build the encyclopedia, is it not? ] <sup><span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ])</span></sup> 13:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Time to get rid of the anti-Gibraltar faction. ] (]) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:: "Get rid of" where, mate? ] (]) 17:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::: ], preferably. ] (]) 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::: Sorry, I meant "factiousness". The article is a fine one, the anniversary is appropriate, and there are no better claims on the date. ] (]) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' quality article of historic relevance, --] (]) 14:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The article is of proper quality and is nominated for a relevant date. The anti-Gibraltar arguments hold no water for me, particularly the complaint about too much main page exposure. By that argument, there are numerous topics that would be similarly disqualified (e.g.: athletes, pop culture, video games, etc.) and unless the same arguments are being made in TFA noms about those topics by the same objectors, I find it very easy to dismiss said objections. ]] 14:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is clearly a fantastic article, it has plenty of points, it's of broad interest (anyone interested in any part of European politics for the last thousand years should find something interesting here) and how often do we get a tercentenary at TFA? The "controversy" is the result of a handful of people who are determined to quash a conspiracy (even where no such conspiracy exists) instead of just being happy to see quality contributions to the encyclopaedia. You won't get me to agree with everything done in the name of Gibraltarpedia, but it's undeniable that it has resulted in hundreds of high-quality articles and that nobody involved had any ulterior motive. Or has the mainspace finally become less important than wiki-politics? ] &#124; ] 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Tercentenary is a significant commemoration. --] (]) 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The only reason to oppose this is to continue a silly Misplaced Pages political battle and to "punish" people who got mixed up in it. A reader who didn't know anything about the Gibraltarpedia controversy would not find this topic controversial in the slightest, only those who feel upset about the way that paid editing got mixed up with the improvement of Gibraltar-based topics and feel the need to take revenge by actively opposing Gibraltar based topics ''without regard for the quality of the article itself or the relevance to the date in question'' seem to be opposing this, and really, I've read the article, and can see no reason why it wouldn't be an FA, and given the relevance of the date in question, I also can't find any good reason why this shouldn't appear on the main page that date. --]''''']''''' 17:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - High quality article. I don't have an objection to this one. Spamming the main page to keep Gibraltar constantly in view is quite another thing. ] (]) 17:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
* '''perhaps support,''' at the price of '''''never seeing another Gibraltar DYK ever again'''''. ] (]) 17:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
{{hat|Unproductive to continue this particular discussion, I think. ]] 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)}}
:* You might as well oppose then because there most certainly will be more Gibraltar-related DYKs - just not very many and not very often (there have been only 6 in the last 3 months, out of about <s>4,500</s> 2,000 DYKs in that period). If you want to make a case for banning future Gibraltar-related DYKs, ] is the place to try, not here. ] (]) 17:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:**When Prioryman gives figures, always follow the maxim: Trust, but verify. (See above.) I've never known them to be correct. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:***OK, I overestimated the total number of DYKs, but the number of DYKs actually about Gibraltar (6 in the last 3 months) is accurate. The point stands. If you think that 6 out of 2,000 is excessive then you're crazy. Besides which, it has absolutely no bearing on whether this article is a suitable candidate for TFA on this date. ] (]) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:****Proving the point. You can't add. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 19:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}
* '''Support''': a beautiful article on a significant and unusual historical topic, coupled with an excellent anniversary. --] (]) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
----
{{A note}} As the person who in all probability will be making the final decision here, can I make a few general points?
# There is no need for supporters or opposers to feel obliged to reply to points made by the "other side", especially if it would just be repetition of earlier material. I suspect it is unlikely that threaded discussions underneath someone's expression of opinion will lead to a change of heart anyway(!) and I should be capable of remembering and applying arguments made earlier to responses added later.
# Please would all participants do their best to keep the temperature cool here. Inflamed passions do not help.
# (I ought to be able to think of a third general point, because three is a good number for rhetorical purposes...) Oh yes, it's lovely to see so many new faces here. Please do remember to come again soon, either with nominations of your own or to comment on other nominations. Thank you all. We now return to our previously scheduled programming... ]] 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
----
*'''Support''' A 300th anniversary is a legitimate reason. The usual (and legitimate) objections to Gibraltarpedia's spamming don't, IMO, apply.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
**Just as an aside, note that ] says the Treaty was signed April 11, 1713. According to , the Treaty of Utrecht was "a series of treaties between France and other European powers (April 11, 1713 to Sept. 7, 1714) and another series between Spain and other powers (July 13, 1713 to June 26, 1714), concluding the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14)." So the July 13 date is in there, as one of the dates on which the Spanish signed one of the constituent treaties (and it's the right date for this article), but you wouldn't know that from Misplaced Pages's article on the Treaty. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
***So fix it!--] (]) 02:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' From the conversation above, I see no indication that this is actually linked to Gibraltarpedia. '''<font face="Arial">]</font>''' 22:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' In the first line we say it was inhabited 50,000 years ago but the history is only 2900 years. Shouldn't the first words say "The '''recorded''' history of Gibraltar"? ] (]) 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*:What other sort is there? History is about recorded events. We might even say that 50,000 years ago is before history - pre-history even. ] (]) 01:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*::You actually agree with me that history is recorded events, and that's why I suggested the word "recorded" be added. Just seems to me to be very ambiguous to say in the same breath we know there were occupants in Gibraltar 50,000 years ago but the it has a history of only 2900 years. Not a biggie. ] (]) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*:::"Recorded history" is a tautology. If it's not recorded, it's not history. In the case of the 50,000-year-old occupants, that's paleontology and archaeology. ] (]) 07:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' TFA is indeed separate from DYK and that controversy is long past. So I believe there is no reason not to have the anniversary featured on the main page. ] (]) 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cot|This isn't DYK, please take up issues about that at ]}}
*'''It's not eligible''', I shouldn't think. The article was created in September of 2008 by ]. What we have is a complete rewrite (but not a manyfold expansion) on June 6, 2013, by ]. Complete rewrites are fine (or can be), but are not the same as new article. The existing material was not overwritten but was moved to ]; the date stamp on ] shows a June 6 2013 creation because of this, but an article has existed under that name since 2008. If ] had ''not'' had the material moved to another article and had just overwritten, this article would certainly not be eligible for DYK


==Specific date nominations==
:This may be nitpicking, and I don't feel super-strongly about it, since after all all the ''material'' in the article is new. But if this article is accepted, the DYK folks should add a line to eligibility rules the effect of "Completely rewritten articles (90% new material, or whatever) are eligible, even if this is not a fivefold expansion, provided the old material is moved to another article" or something. This is not a door I would want to open, for reasons you can probably imagine yourselves. But to publish this article and not add a rule allowing other articles to published under the same criteria would be mediocre, I think. So this is an issue.


===March 2===
:I'm glad that ] had the old material moved because it looks worthy at first blush. It's not really a timeline in the sense of being a bare list, but more a regular article that instead of beginning its paragraphs "In 1749, the King of Spain..." begins them "'''1749:'' The King of Spain...". I haven't compared the two articles in any detail, but I wonder if we really need what looks to be two separate articles covering the same subject in essentially the same way, albeit using different format. Not sure if this is a good trend. If it's not a good trend not sure that DYK should be encouraging it.


{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Hughie Ferguson}}
:FWIW I'm also tired of hearing about Gibraltar, and more importantly I'm tired of hearing about the whole Gibraltar thing, and I don't understand why the DYK folks would want to chance bringing more opprobrium upon their weary heads, but whatever. (I'm assuming that of course ] has no connection with Gibraltarpedia and all that and this is just a coincidence.) ] (]) 02:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


===March 6===
::This is TFA/R. DYK is outside, down two flights, past the large toppled statue, and across the courtyard.--] (]) 02:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
::: True, very true, Mr. Wehwalt. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*I'm all for AGF, but considering this page has a big header which says "Today's featured article" its hard sometimes.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Les Holden}}
::I think you got lost, Herostratus. :P <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


===March 10===
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>blink<nowiki>*</nowiki> ] (]) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number}}


===March 12===
:::I ''did'' get lost, sorry, and sorry for wasting your time. I've been a little loopy ever since the ] I guess. ] (]) 12:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/2020 Seattle Sounders FC season}}
{{cob}}


===March 25===
*'''comment''' Given the balance of the modern Gibraltarian economy the emphasis on tourism over its tax haven activities seems rather odd.] (]) 06:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:* If you look at the last sentence of the blurb, it refers to "financial services, shipping and tourism." Only the last is currently linked but there are articles in preparation on the first two, which will tackle the tax haven issue. ] (]) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Flotilla (video game)}}
*'''Support''' Thanks for this - I needed a good laugh this morning, and I am delighted to see this on the front page. Oh and BTW if anyone has any ideas for working on a New York City DYK-scandal, pls. let me know, because I have plenty of ideas to make DYK entries there too. From my desk with coffee in the Netherlands (and still not bored of Gib), I greet all of you Gib bickerers, as well as any Treaty of Utrecht fans. ] (]) 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


===March 30===
*'''Support''' – IMO, it has little or nothing to do with the Gibraltarpedia issues.&nbsp;]]] 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Your Girl}}
* '''Comment'''. It would be super-exciting if we could work with our dear friends at Wikipediocracy in order for them to inform their favourite journalist of the appearance of this TFA on the main page well in advance. That way, instead of merely providing a screenshot of the article being on the main page, as has been the practice in the past, the journalist in question could publish a <s>whine</s> piece of journalism specifically linking the WP main page as being the place to find the outrage in question. This would help under-educated people who frequent technology websites (like myself) to reach the sum of all human knowledge accessible at the Misplaced Pages main page, as well as helping to educate them about the History of Gibraltar if they subsequently view the article itself. It might even be possible (this is a technical thing, y'know) for the site in question to automatically post a pre-written piece by the prize journalist in question, at 00:01 on July 13. Win-win for everyone. --] (]) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
*:Sardonicism has no place in discussions such as this. --]''''']''''' 21:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
*::The ancient Greeks believed it to be the world's biggest island. Ah, perhaps that was ] instead. --] (]) 22:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per every other support above. ] (]) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:37, 5 January 2025

↓↓Skip to nominations

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 1 to March 31.

Date Article Notes Supports Opposes
Nonspecific 1 All-American Bitch 0 2
Nonspecific 2
Nonspecific 3 Leroy Chollet 100th birthday March 5. NAIA National Championship is March 20 to March 25. 1
Nonspecific 4 History of infant schools in Great Britain 1
Nonspecific 5
March 2 Hughie Ferguson 130th birthday 1
March 6 Les Holden 130th birthday 1
March 10 Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number 10th anniversary of release 1
March 12 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season 5th anniversary of suspension 1
March 25 Flotilla (video game) 15th anniversary of release 1
March 30 Your Girl 20th anniversary of release 1

Tally may not be up to date. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

All-American Bitch

Rodrigo performing "All-American Bitch"Rodrigo performing "All-American Bitch"

"All-American Bitch" is a song by American singer-songwriter Olivia Rodrigo from her second studio album, Guts. Lyrically, it is satire and explores Rodrigo's concerns about society's double standards and contradictory expectations for women. Rodrigo co-wrote the song with its producer, Dan Nigro, and believed it captured feelings she had repressed since the age of 15. It begins as a folk song and transitions into pop-punk during the chorus, incorporating influences of punk, rock, grunge, and pop rock. "All-American Bitch" was viewed as a successful opening track that appealed to Generation Z by music critics, who praised Rodrigo's vocals and the production. The song reached number 13 in the US and the top 10 in Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. Rodrigo performed it on Saturday Night Live, where she stabbed a red-colored cake at a tea party and splattered it on her face; the performance received positive reviews. She also included the song on the set list of the 2024–2025 Guts World Tour. (Full article...)

Coordinator comment I confess to feeling a bit dubious about this one because of the name. If I am to run it, I'd like to see a strong consensus. Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
While this is a fine article for some other day, I am not comfortable with the song article for that particular day. I remember that SusunW had a suggestion closer related to women's rights and international relevance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
How about this song for 20 February, the singer's birthday, NØ, Gog the Mild? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
MF has just pulled it from a February slot, but - right now - I could reinstate it on the 20th. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I will let you three take a call. I mean, it doesn't necessarily need to go on on a special occasion since the last Rodrigo TFA was a long long time ago. WP:TFAP for March looks largely empty, so I am fine with it getting the day prior to Women's Day.--NØ 11:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think a similar objection would attend running it on March 7 or 9, given time zones. I can offer another March date if February 20 is no good.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Based on my understanding, Gerda Arendt just prefers the article SusunW had suggested for IWD. It is not because of an issue with the song title being inappropriate for the occasion. This is a feminist song, so that would not make sense imo.--NØ 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
It may be "a feminist song", but there are plenty of women who feel uncomfortable with the label "bitch", given how often it is used as an insult. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The line in the song is "I'm a perfect all-American bitch" and it is clearly reclaimed and used in a positive context by Rodrigo, who is a woman herself. It would be an insult to the intelligence of our readers for us to assume they are going to be offended by it. Anyways, I will take Wehwalt up on the offer of a random March date and withdraw this. Please close it. Thanks.--NØ 09:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave it open on a non-specific date so I know where to find it. Further comments are welcome, and what is the article that SusunW thinks would be good for March 8? I'm starting to put together the March schedule.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
No-one is insulting anyone's intelligence. It's a contentious term, end of story. Same way that other terms that have been reclaimed by a group or community are still offensive to many while being acceptable to others. It doesn't matter if this is claimed to be "a feminist song" or not: some people will be offended that we've decided to mark International Women's Day by using an article whose title includes the word "bitch", however supposedly positive the message behind it.No problem running it on another day in the month, as long as it's a few days away from the 8th. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what putting it in direct quotes again and again is supposed to accomplish, but this is most certainly a feminist song. I only emphasize this so no one misunderstands my initial intentions in nominating it for IWD. Another date in March sounds good to me, though, Schro.--NØ 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I put it in quotes because I was quoting your words. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
What article is that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator comment Right now I'm planning on running this on March 3 (subject to change) and Sally Ride on March 8.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

Mariah Carey

Mariah Carey (born 1969) is an American singer, songwriter, record producer, and actress. She rose to fame in 1990 with her self-titled debut album and has released fifteen studio albums, most recently Caution (2018). Known for her five-octave vocal range and signature use of the whistle register, she has been dubbed the "Songbird Supreme" by the Guinness World Records. Carey is one of the best-selling music artists, with over 220 million units sold worldwide, and holds the record for the most number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 by a solo artist. In addition, her singles have spent a record 97 weeks on the chart, and Carey is the only artist to have their first five singles reach number one on the chart. The recipient of various accolades, she has been inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the National Recording Registry at the Library of Congress. Rolling Stone ranked her as the fifth greatest singer of all time in 2023. (Full article...)

  • March 15, 2025 - 20th anniversary of the release of her 2005 single "We Belong Together"
  • June 12, 2025 - 35th anniversary of her musical debut with her 1990 album Mariah Carey
  • September 26, 2025 - 30th anniversary of the release of her 1995 album Daydream
  • November 1, 2025 - Coinciding Carey's release of her "It's Time!" video, signaling the start of Christmas season
  • December 4, 2025 - 5th anniversary of the recording of "Oh Santa!", which also features Jennifer Hudson and Ariana Grande
Note: April 12, 2025 (20th anniversary of The Emancipation of Mimi) was not included to avoid conflict with a potentially scheduled article (Dolly de Leon) for TFA, as seen on WP:TFAP. Kindly vote below this line on when you want this page to appear. Thank you. ScarletViolet tc 12:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support putting this on the main page feels safer after its FAR. I personally have another idea for a day: March 27, 2025 because that will be her 56th birthday. If this day isn't feasible, then my second choice would be the 15th for the anniversary of "We Belong Together". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Nonspecific date 3

Leroy Chollet

Leroy Chollet

Leroy Chollet (March 5, 1925 – June 10, 1998) was an American professional basketball player. Chollet enrolled at Loyola University New Orleans and led the Loyola Wolf Pack to their first championship, but Louisiana schools were segregated. Chollet had an African American great-grandparent, and when this was revealed, he was pressured into leaving Loyola. He moved to New York and played three seasons for Canisius College. Chollet played for several professional teams, including the Syracuse Nationals. During the inaugural season of the National Basketball Association (NBA), Syracuse made it to the 1950 NBA Finals. An ankle injury limited Chollet's second year in the NBA. He married Barbara Knaus, and, after retiring from professional basketball in 1952, he moved to her hometown, Lakewood, Ohio. They had three children: Lawrence, Melanie, and David. In Lakewood, Chollet worked on the construction of St. Edward High School and became a teacher and varsity head coach. (Full article...)

  • Most recent similar article(s):
  • Main editors: Rjjiii
  • Promoted: 29 October 2024
  • Reasons for nomination: This is my first TFA, so let me know if I'm skipping anything. I see a lot of biographies are posted on a relevant date. Leroy Chollet was born March 5, married in June, and won the NAIA National Championship which this year will be from March 20 to March 25. I don't have a strong preference on date if those don't work or if a TFA is needed sooner.
  • Support as nominator. Rjj (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
March 5, 2025 would be the Centenary of his birth. That could work as a date. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 4

History of infant schools in Great Britain

Which is your Right Hand?, illustration of an unidentified infant class, drawn by Paul Renouard  and published in The Graphic (1898)Which is your Right Hand?, illustration of an unidentified infant class, drawn by Paul Renouard  and published in The Graphic (1898)

The history of infant schools in Great Britain began in 1816, when the first infant school was founded in New Lanark, Scotland. It was followed by other philanthropic infant schools across Great Britain. A theory of infant teaching developed which included moral education, physical exercise and an authoritative but friendly teacher. Infant schools served to maximise the education children could receive before they left school to start work and were valued by parents as a form of childcare. State-funded schools in England and Wales were advised in 1840 to include infant departments within their grounds. Infant education came under pressure to achieve quick academic progress in children and shifted towards rote learning. Beginning in 1905, infant lessons in England and Wales shifted towards more child-centred methods of teaching, where education was meant to reflect the preferences of children. The child-centred approach reached its peak following a report in 1967. In 1988, a more centralised curriculum was introduced. The term "infant department" for the early years at school was used widely in Scotland in the 1960s but is no longer generally used there. (Full article...)

Nonspecific date 5

Nonspecific date 6

Nonspecific date 7

Nonspecific date 8

Nonspecific date 9

Nonspecific date 10

Nonspecific date 11

Specific date nominations

March 2

Hughie Ferguson

Hughie Ferguson

Hughie Ferguson (2 March 1895 – 8 January 1930) was a professional footballer. He was one of Scotland's most sought-after young players before signing for Motherwell F.C. to begin his professional career. He played as a centre forward and finished as the top goalscorer in the Scottish Football League on three occasions. His 284 league goals remains a club record and, by 1925, he was the highest-scoring player in the history of the Scottish League. In 1925, Ferguson moved to Cardiff City F.C.; he was the club's top goalscorer for four consecutive seasons. He scored the winning goal in the 1927 FA Cup final and scored in the 1927 FA Charity Shield. Ferguson returned to Scotland with Dundee F.C. in 1929, but struggled to reproduce his goalscoring form. Six months after his arrival, he lost his place in the team and committed suicide. He is one of only seven men in the history of the English and Scottish Football Leagues to have scored 350 league goals. (Full article...)

March 6

Les Holden

Les Holden

Les Holden (6 March 1895 – 18 September 1932) was a fighter ace of World War I. He joined the Australian Light Horse in May 1915, serving in Egypt and France. In December 1916 he volunteered for the Australian Flying Corps and qualified as a pilot. As a member of No. 2 Squadron he gained the sobriquets "Lucky Les" and "the homing pigeon" after a series of incidents where he limped back to base in bullet-riddled aircraft. He was awarded the Military Cross, achieved five aerial victories, and finished the war as an instructor with No. 6 (Training) Squadron in England, earning the Air Force Cross. After leaving the Australian Flying Corps in 1919, he became a manager at Holden's Motor Body Builders. He joined the part-time Citizen Air Force before establishing an air service as a commercial pilot. In 1929, he located Charles Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm in the north-west Australian desert after the pair were reported missing. He was killed in a passenger plane crash in Australia. (Full article...)

March 10

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

The game's designer and programmer Jonatan Söderström at the Game Developers Conference in 2010The game's designer and programmer Jonatan Söderström at the Game Developers Conference in 2010

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is a 2015 top-down shooter game developed by Dennaton Games and published by Devolver Digital. A sequel to Hotline Miami, it focuses on the prelude and aftermath of that game's protagonist's actions against the Russian mafia in Miami. The player takes on the role of several characters throughout the game, witnessing the game's events from their perspectives. In each level of the game, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy through any means possible. The game was released on 10 March 2015 for Linux, OS X, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, PlayStation Vita, and Windows. The game received positive reviews, with critics praising the soundtrack, though had divisive thoughts on its gameplay, level design and narrative. The game featured a scene depicting sexual assault, which triggered a mostly negative response from media outlets and led to the game being refused classification in Australia. (Full article...)

March 12

2020 Seattle Sounders FC season

The 2020 season for Seattle Sounders FC was their twelfth in Major League Soccer (MLS), the top flight of professional club soccer in the United States. It was the 37th season played by a professional team bearing the Sounders name. Seattle were the reigning MLS Cup champions and were expected to play 34 matches during the regular season, which began on March 1. The regular season was suspended on March 12 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which had already caused reduced attendance at an earlier match. MLS play returned with a special tournament in July hosted at a bubble site; teams then hosted matches behind closed doors. The Sounders only played 22 regular season matches after several were canceled; the 2020 U.S. Open Cup was also canceled. Seattle qualified for the playoffs as the second-placed team in the Western Conference and won a second consecutive conference championship. They lost 3–0 in the MLS Cup against Columbus Crew SC. (Full article...)

March 25

Flotilla (video game)

Brendon Chung, the developer of FlotillaBrendon Chung, the developer of Flotilla

Flotilla is a 2010 turn-based strategy space combat video game developed by Brendon Chung (pictured) and his studio, Blendo Games. The game was released in March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows and on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. Flotilla was designed with Microsoft's XNA tools, and its development was influenced by animals as well as board games such as Axis & Allies and Arkham Horror. The game takes the player on an adventure through a randomly generated galaxy. Chung began developing Flotilla after the closure of Pandemic Studios, where he had worked as a designer. The new game used assets imported from Chung's early space combat prototype Space Piñata. Flotilla incorporates pieces of classical music in its score such as Frédéric Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude. It received mixed reviews from video game media outlets, scoring 72 out of 100 on review aggregate website Metacritic, and was included in Mike Rose's book 250 Indie Games You Must Play. (Full article...)

  • Support as original editor. I thought this article had already made it to the homepage heh. Thank you!
→ Call me Razr Nation 19:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

March 30

Your Girl

Mariah Carey, the artist of Your GirlMariah Carey, the artist of Your Girl

"Your Girl" is a song recorded by American singer Mariah Carey (pictured) for her tenth studio album, The Emancipation of Mimi. She wrote the track with Marc Shemer, who also produced it with her under the name Scram Jones. The lyrics of "Your Girl" are about confidently approaching a potential lover. To convey this sentiment, Carey employs belting in her vocal performance. The track was influenced by disco, gospel, jazz, pop, and soul, while sampling vocals and an acoustic guitar from the 2003 Adeaze song "A Life with You". Some reviewers considered "Your Girl" one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi; others criticized the vocals. Regretful that it was not issued as a single from the album, Carey later released two remixes featuring rappers Cam'ron, Juelz Santana, and N.O.R.E. as part of a 2021 digital extended play. She has performed the song live during the 2006 The Adventures of Mimi concert tour and the 2024 Celebration of Mimi concert residency in Las Vegas. (Full article...)

Categories: