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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia policies and guidelines History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

See also RfC to IAR for DYK

This RfC is to determine what to do on the Main Page during the week of the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.

Here are some possible options:

• Option 1: Run all the FAs (Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins (astronaut), and Apollo 11) during the week of July 16 thru July 24 with exact dates to be determined later.
• Option 2: Only have Neil Armstrong as TFA and construct the July 21 Main Page something like so: Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/Main Page/July 21 with Collins appearing at DYK, Aldrin at OTD, and Apollo 11 at TFP. However, reserve the TFAs of Michael Collins (astronaut) and Buzz Aldrin to be posted at a later date (like their birthdays, etc.). Also reserve Apollo 11 for a later date.
• Option 3: A combination of the above two options where all FAs appear during the week and July 21 is constructed like Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/Main Page/July 21.
• Option 4: Follow the established policies and guidelines. Do not have so many similar subjects featured on the Main Page during the same week.
• Added Option 5: Use the Obama/McCain model, randomizing which FA appears on July 21.
• Added Option 5a: Use the Obama/McCain model, randomizing all 4 FAs to appear for 48 hours on July 20 and July 21.

Options 1, 2 and 3 require a some application of WP:IAR. Note that there has been a previous RfC about DYK. A notice has been posted at the Village Pump, WT:DYK, WT:POTD, and WT:OTD to garner wider input.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

• Option 2 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willing to switch to John M Wolfson's idea of the Obama/McCain model if technically feasible.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support Option 5a – Yes, that means the FAs won't appear for full 24 hours. But that is offset by capturing a bigger audience with a 48 hour run. As to SchroCat point of not exhausting our readers, I think two days is not too long of a period. Note that U.S. readers remember the event as occurring on July 20. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also not opposed to Option 1 and 3. Any thing but 4. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 This anniversary is a big deal, and is going to attract lots of interest from readers. As a ton of work has gone into getting these articles to FA to mark the anniversary, we should run them over the week to both interest readers' and highlight the excellent work to them. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 I agree that the FAs should be recognized, but would also like more on the day itself for the occasion--Cincotta1 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 I agree with Nick-D, all of the FAs should get exposure during that week. Schazjmd (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 5a is a good compromise. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3. Best of both worlds (no pun intended). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. 1. There are lots of momentous points in history, and all have anniversaries: we don’t mark other major points by exhausting our readers’ patience in repeating a topic over the course of a week (if we go for a week of the same type of articles, the big complaints will start on day 3, and they’ll be carnage by the time day 5 arrives. 2. A fiftieth is a notable anniversary, but it’s not a centennial or millennial-type anniversary. IAR should be used sparingly, not thrown around to get a ‘pet’ subject on the MP for a whole week. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SchroCat: This is only the first. I have other special projects in the works for more anniversaries like this with world changing consequences. 75th anniversary of V-E Day is the next up. Can you support Option 5a? Just trying to build consensus.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sticking with 4. Bringing in themed MPs is too much for me, and you have to think about where it ends. Less is more, and you lose the impact of an article or section by saturating the whole page with too much sameness.

This and the one other example you have given smack of RECENTISM (yes, I know they are 50-year anniversaries, but that's still very recent in historical terms). It will lead to the kind of circular arguments seen on ITN: why VJ Day and not VE Day? Why the landing on the moon and not the founding of the new world or settling in Australia, (both of which are arguably more significant than the moon landings)? People will start comparing and grading historical events for a MP theme day, and I can't imagine a bigger waste of time and effort than that.

A consensus will come, even if I don't change my vote, but people will tire of a MP themes fairly soon, and it'll lead to complaints about why certain events have not been covered. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. VJ Day is also in the works. If we knew the exact date of the discovery of the new world or settling in Australia, I would do projects on them. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - and I'll Oppose projects on those too. I'll probably be on the losing side of them all, but I am a firm believer in 'less is more' so the impact of an article or section is not lost in the noise. (And one of my points was why VJ Day and not (or also) VE Day)? RECENTISM is also too glaring here as well. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Feature them all on July 21. (Option 5) Have separate blurbs for each of them, and randomize which one appears to the reader on that day. It's what we did with Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 election, and I think the date is important enough to do it again. I know it's a lot of blurbs, but I can help write some. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the blurbs have already been written: 11, Aldrin, Collins. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fantastic. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also support Option 5a. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: I'm a fan of the visual juxtaposition of all three astronauts on the Main Page, as seen here. Option 3 also seems like a good alternative, but running so many Apollo 11 FAs might become tiresome, as SchroCat pointed out, although I wouldn't be personally against it if consensus says so. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 6. RFC was mentioned on WP:Discord. First of all, I really, really like the idea behind this RFC. I would never have thought to do something this cool! My proposal is to make this a two-day affair with July 20 looking something like this and going with either Options 3 or 5. The key parts I have so far include the Moon being the TFA and a general space/exploration-related OTD. I don't want it getting lost that this is an accomplishment for humanity, so I worked really hard to find a diverse selection of content. I'm against Option 4 and support either Option 3 or 5. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please strike this vote. The number of Main Page rules this idea violates is astronomical. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs:  Done Can I say Option 3 with the moon instead? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Moon has already appeared at TFA. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dang it. Okay, thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3as first choice, but not particularly fussy about the details. Generally support the idea of showing them all during the week. Generally support the idea of celebrating major anniversaries of major events of worldwide interest and importance. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (Summoned by bot) Option 3 as a compromise between 1 and 2, which I thought were the best. SemiHypercube 19:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 or Option 3. We put a lot of effort in to make the theme on July 21st, so it would be nice to see that come to fruition. Kees08 (Talk) 23:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 And choose a random subject for the TFA via normal means Abote2 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. As has been correctly pointed out above, there are lots of significant events in history. I have no issue if you want to nominate a multi-article TFA to run on one day, along the lines of pilots shot down on 7 September 1940, triangular constellations or the 2008 US election, but allowing a single topic to hijack the main page for a week is a poor precedent to set, and the proposal to do the same for other topics such as VJ-day is an atrocious precedent to set. One of the great strengths of the existing TFA setup is that its scheduling neutrally reflects the distribution of our pool of Featured Articles; this proposal would essentially be saying to the world "topics of importance to the recent history of the United States are more important than other topics", which is a dreadful message to be sending. Yes, we dropped the ball once on the day we allowed the Trekkies to hijack the main page, but that we made an error once doesn't mean we should continue making it. (Incidentally, those talking about Use the Obama/McCain model, randomizing which FA appears appear to have misunderstood what the Obama/McCain model is. It isn't about randomising which FA appears, it's a mechanism for randomising the order in which the multiple FAs are listed in the blurb when the blurb is for multiple items.) ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it is worth, I specifically have worked on/am working (hoping to finish in time) on four Soviet and one French DYK article to try to balance the page. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 or possibly a single related TFA (based on date relevance) - a weeklong or main-page-wide extravaganza is way excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 or 1 - Leaves it at only one day, and shows a spread of articles. Backup preference would be 5a (if technically possible). The moon landing is an event important to the world, not just the United States. --Spacepine (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC) edited 13:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 sounds good. It would be nice if Mae Jemison could appear as a pictured DYK, particularly if there are going to be multiple photos of astronauts on the page at once. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 seems fair and reasonable. ——SerialNumber54129 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1, let's show them off. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 - They are all fantastic articles which users will surely want to read, especially with the spike in interest that the anniversary will cause. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument that says doing something special for an anniversary will lead to all sorts of irrelevant anniversaries being celebrated in this manner. Mainly because Wikipedia is really good at stopping these sort of slopes from happening. Hell, there are people who already oppose it from the first attempt. In conclusions, the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight is important enough and the four articles are good enough for this option to make sense. This should be judged on a case by case basis in the future and everything will be fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer option 4 here. Otherwise, what will we run next year? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izno (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per PraiseVivec, who has said it better than I could have. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, for all the reasons laid out by Iridescent and SchroCat. If Option 4 is chosen, Apollo 11 is probably the best article to run, as it's the overarching topic and doesn't have any date connection except the anniversaries of the mission in late July, whereas Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins obviously have birthdays. A. Parrot (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 5a I like the idea of recognizing important worldwide anniversaries (50, 100, 200 etc.) in this project. If 5a is not technally possible, my second preference is Option 4 with Apollo 11 as the best article to run. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 - I'd prefer to have 3 FAs on one page but that can't be done (and I don't like the layout of #2) so for me the next best option is #1 - I would certainly support 4 FAs in a row. –Davey2010^Talk 11:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - I agree with Iridescent; Great achievement getting them to FA, but we need to acknowledge the event in a way that works within the existing policy and guidelines, which are there for good reason. Promethean (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the idea of this. I think that Option 5a is a good compromise. --Pine (✉) 23:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Regarding option 2, if only one article was to be run as a TFA (or be used as the centre of a themed page), Apollo 11 seems the logical choice given that the mission involved huge numbers of people, not just Aldrin. Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Apollo 11 is already scheduled at POTD for July 21, so I think one of the astronauts might be a better choice. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 04:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That was only because we scheduled Armstrong for TFA; we can use a different image for POTD if needed. Kees08 (Talk) 20:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am especially attached to the photo chosen for POTD. It is quite iconic and memorable. Could we not just choose a different article with the same photo? Extravehicular activity, for example, comes to mind. Sorry Ravenpuff. I know we have worked hard on the POTD blurb but that is sunk cost and some of it can be repurposed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with that if consensus dictates, although I'm still in favour of keeping the POTD blurb as-is, per my !vote for Option 2 above. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I wouldn't have an objection to all four TFA's running more-or-less together, as it was a great achievement in Wiki terms to get all of them to FA in time for the anniversary, but agree with Nick that if we just stick to one in the actual period of the mission then Apollo 11 is the logical one. That said, there is precedent for multiple articles sharing the TFA slot on the one day, either all at one time or (from memory) on a revolving basis. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• For POTD, several pictures with module Random could be used. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew there must have been an idea I did not think of. Randomizing seems like a good compromise if we can get everyone to agree on it. These articles are going to get huge amount of attention no matter what we do. Can any one speak to the technical feasibility in the current Main Page? 2008 was a long time ago. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My only issue with option 5 is that the articles would not get 24 hours on the main page (I know technically they do, but I don't expect most users to keep refreshing the main page). Kees08 (Talk) 22:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @WP:TFA coordinators Ping coordinators. What if we did it for 48 hours on July 20 and July 21. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with that which Option 5 tries to solve is that July 21 is the "prize" and any article not featured on that date would be comparatively shafted. The landing was on July 20, so it's not that bad, but that also requires an invocation of WP:IAR to have similar topics twice in a row. Perhaps we can have Modified Option 5: 11 and Collins get Obama/McCain'd for July 20, and Aldrin and Armstrong get Obama/McCain'd for July 21. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We are talking about the same idea, almost. My idea is that all 4 are randomized and appear for 48 hours on July 20 and July 21. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with that as well if consensus goes that way. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've come all in with a new contender in Option 6. I think the Moon itself should be the TFA for 20 July 2019. Folk here might want to consider that as an option. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is currently no outstanding TFA request for July 20, so there's nothing to block Option 5a. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Kees08 and Hawkeye7: It would be helpful to know your opinion on this matter. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like the sharing concept at all. A lot of work went into all four articles, and each deserves to have its own run. (Barak Obama had already been run.) The original concept was to run them all in the same week. Recommend running Apollo 11 on 21 July, per Nick-D, as it is by far the most appropriate article. We can save Aldrin and Collins for another day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Hawkeye, have multiple on the same day is my least favorite option. I am indifferent on if we run 3/4 of the articles during the 50th anniversary of the mission (I think it would be neat, but it is not my encyclopedia). Voted above accordingly. Kees08 (Talk) 23:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Having multiple articles will reduce the impact of TFA. It can be expected that articles Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Apollo 11 will get attention on the anniversary regardless of presense on the main page. How about option 6: have Michael Collins (astronaut) as TFA, and relegate other articles to OTD and DYK blurbs. This, of course, violates WP:POLA to some extent, and might seem like some kind of reverse-psychology-logic-flip a bit too far, but a) WP:IAR has already been invoked here and b) I would like to hear what people think about such an idea. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion on this has died down; might be good to try to close it so the TFA coords can get their planning done early. Kees08 (Talk) 17:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has died down and the TFA schedulers would probably prefer if this was resolved, so it might be a good time to officially close this. Kees08 (Talk) 06:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you have an idea on how you want to close this? Probably time to get this settled. Kees08 (Talk) 07:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested closure. Other than that I have no idea. If the community decides to come to no consensus, WP:IAR is still a policy on en.wiki, and each WikiProject that determines the outcome of an individual section of the Main Page is still permitted act independently, I have no motivation to force the issue. What will be will be. It is up to the @WP:TFA coordinators to decide what will happen at this project. Our time is better spent elsewhere. Perhaps it would have been better if I asked people to rank their favorite option like so: 2/3/5a/1/5/4. But I don't have a time machine. If you are motivated to do so, you can ping all the people that voted already and ask them to rank their favorite options in order. I am dejected. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jim is in charge of scheduling July. CaC, I'm not following why you're dejected; this was set up as an RfC, outside closers generally don't get involved until 30 days at the earliest, and it's been 25 days. We had a vigorous discussion. So ... everything seems on track, to me. Is there something you want Jim to do sooner than that? - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Dejected was too strong a word. Sorry, I was in a particularly depressed mood. I am discouraged by the outcome not being more clear so we can plan around it and also avoid arguments on the day in question. I would hate a no consesus but I will wait and see how it closes. The result of this RfC also has effects that reverberate across the Main Page, especially at POTD. It would be nice to be sure which page will be at TFA on July 21. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      All good points. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      FWIW, I would be fine with (and would almost prefer) if Dank or JimofBleak closed the RfC. Better to have someone familiar with the main page I think. Coffeeandcrumbs do you have a preference? Dank/JimofBleak, would you feel comfortable? Kees08 (Talk) 16:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Definitely prefer if the coordinators closed it per curiam. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for your confidence, I appreciate it. I'll support whatever the other coords want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      @Jimfbleak: Looks like I might have messed up my ping; would you be interested in closing the discussion? Kees08 (Talk) 18:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]