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

 

Line 107: Line 107:

:Sounds good. I’ll flip it later today. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

:Sounds good. I’ll flip it later today. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

::By the way, it is correct with “dinosaur” in the first line rather than the plural? [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

::By the way, it is correct with “dinosaur” in the first line rather than the plural? [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

:::Thanks. Most dinosaur FAs use “dinosaur” in singular here, including the latest genus FA (”[[Proceratosaurus]]”), which was promoted last summer. I assume that singular and plural are both correct; I’m not a native speaker though. –[[User:Jens Lallensack|Jens Lallensack]] ([[User talk:Jens Lallensack|talk]]) 09:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 21 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

To notify all the TFA coordinators on any talk page, use {{@TFA}} in your message, and sign it.

These are still commercial products after all, and running a featured article for a recently released piece of media may appear promotional in one way or another, even if there is no intention to. There is also the extended awards seasons for film, television, music, etc that can last a year after its initial release and running a piece of media that is nominated may appear to be trying to influence the vote or as commentary on it if it won or lost.

Thus I feel there should be a formalized rule that prevents recent media from running until a year or two after its release date.

see also:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say the earliest we should run a media article is on its first anniversary. Any earlier would be problematic, like you said. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with QuicoleJR. I also suggest that a media piece should not run on the release day of another major piece of media connected with that article. For example, Rihanna should not run on the date that her next album is scheduled to released (whenever it is announced), and The Masked Singer (American TV series) should not run on the finale date of the current season. I think this is already an unwritten rule at TFA (and co-ords already avoid doing this) but I would be fine with formalizing it if that’s where consensus is. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this comment by Wehwalt but, since this question is off-topic I thought I would ask it here:

I have been limiting specific date nominations to 5 or 10 year anniversaries. Should I broaden out my nominations to suggest articles for other anniversary dates? I would still consider such things as topic diversity and give preference to editors who want to nominate their own articles. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking just for myself, I am more interested in topic diversity than anniversaries and find “Never TFA” an entirely sufficient reason for nominating. I may be swayed by significant anniversaries: 10, 50, 100; eg David Bowie died on this day ten years ago. Recently there have been a lot of biographies, to the extent that I was tempted to toss a few back when scheduling February. But the spread was good and I hate disappointing those who put in the work on the noms, so I went with it, but would hope for a lower ratio than 12/28 when my turn comes up again in May. An anniversary per se is unlikely to sway me one way or another. Other TFA coordinators may have different opinions on all of these. Does this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March’s tentative schedule can be found here. As usual, this is not intended to cut off possible nominations, we will do our best to incorporate them. Scheduling will begin probably this weekend or a little after. Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(See Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident § This article is kind of a mess.) Today’s featured article, 2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, currently has around a dozen inline maintenance tags, including for an entire paragraph that is unsourced. The article has admittedly been edited a lot today, but that paragraph was unsourced even before it went up [1]. I encourage the TFA coords to keep an eye out for issues like this, especially for very old FAs that haven’t been reviewed in a long time. Toadspike [Talk] 18:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like discussion has continued at Talk:Main Page § Old FA articles. Toadspike [Talk] 18:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February has been scheduled and the likely schedule for March posted at Wikipedia talk:Today’s featured article/March 2026. Looking at the March schedule, only one article is older than fifteen years old that has not received a more recent review and that one, Montana-class battleship, likely hasn’t deteriorated. Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The picture at Wikipedia:Today’s featured article/February 1, 2026 says “Bust of Scipio” (presumably Scipio Africanus), but the tooltip caption says “Bust of Sulla“. If you click the picture the caption says “Bust of Sulla”. They aren’t the same person. Art LaPella (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is an error — as far as I can see, the bust was traditionally identified as Sulla but more recently (tentatively) reidentified as Scipio. However, I’m struggling to find that in good academic sources, so it might be better to use an image with more secure identification. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don’t understand why it isn’t wrong to say Scipio is Sulla. Should I change Sulla to Scipio? Art LaPella (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think so — if we’re going to go with that identification we should at least do so wholeheartedly! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I’ve changed the tooltip. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t it recently agreed that nominators were to be pinged? Any hoo, the sources relied on for the bust – long considered to be of Sulla – actually being of Scipio are Coarelli, Filippo (2002), “I ritratti di ‘Mario’ e ‘Silla’ a Monaco e il sepolcro degli Scipioni” Eutopia Nuova Serie (in Italian). II (1): pp 73–74 ISSN 1121-1628; and Etcheto, Henri (2012), Les Scipions. Famille et pouvoir à Rome à l’époque républicaine (in French) Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions: pp 274-278 ISBN 978-2-35613-073-0. Coarelli argues that the bust is of Scipio, Etcheto elaborates on the bust’s history and agrees “ce qui reste certainement la solution la plus vraisemblable“. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: it was agreed at the talk page of WP:ERRORS that the co-ords and noms should be pinged when reporting an error there. Art LaPella wasn’t in that discussion and it didn’t cover this page. I’ve been meaning to get around to writing a hatnote to that effect for ERRORS: if you want co-ords noms to be pinged by default here as well, why not tweak the banner at the top to say so? I note that the discussion on 23 Jan above doesn’t include a ping to the co-ords and that one of them got to it in less than 20 minutes (Per Gog’s reply below, I also note that this is beside the point, and that I should have read the comment above more carefully). But to say something relevant to the discussion at hand: those sources look good enough to me for a “bust identified as Scipio”, perhaps “tentatively” — does anyone reputable still call it Sulla? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t referring to co-ords. (“Wasn’t it recently agreed that nominators were to be pinged?”) If it wasn’t agreed that nominators be pinged, or if it was and an editor is understandably unaware of any such agreement it would nevertheless seem a good idea. Any hoo, I am here now, and nope, I can’t find any RSs, much less HQ RSs, saying Sulla. I can’t prove a negative of course but Scipio seems to be the new consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I reported a problem about 6 days in advance, it was at ERRORS, and I was told that anything that far in advance should be worked out before coming there. So it does sound like a runaround. Art LaPella (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Can we please swap this with some other article? Tyrannosaurus has multiple issues (too long, outdated, content missing, overall quality issues). The WikiProject Paleontology plans to do a full revision, but it won’t be ready in time. If you want a dinosaur, may I instead propose Massospondylus, Lambeosaurus, or Thescelosaurus, which all have been fully revised by the WikiProject just recently, followed by multiple reviews (see links in the “Article milestones” section in the talk page of the respective article). Thanks! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can write a TFA blurb for one of them and drop it here, I’d be happy to. I don’t find I’m in my best choosing which technical words to edit.. Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

Massospondylus is a genus of sauropodomorph dinosaur that lived in southern Africa during the Early Jurassic, between 201 and 184 million years ago. It was described by Richard Owen in 1854 and is one of the first dinosaurs to have been named. Although the original fossils were destroyed in London during a bombing raid in World War II, a plethora of specimens have since been assigned to the genus, making it one of the best-known sauropodomorphs from the Early Jurassic. The genus contains two valid species, M. carinatus and M. kaalae. It was 4–6 metres (13–20 ft) long, with a long neck and tail, a small head, and a slender body. It moved on two legs and was probably a plant-eater. Clutches with eggs have been found, some of which contained embryos. Individuals accelerated or slowed down their growth depending on environmental factors such as food availability. The oldest known specimen was around 20 years of age.

Massospondylus has been TFA in 2008, while the other two have been in 2013. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I’ll flip it later today. Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is correct with “dinosaur” in the first line rather than the plural? Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most dinosaur FAs use “dinosaur” in singular here, including the latest genus FA (Proceratosaurus), which was promoted last summer. I assume that singular and plural are both correct; I’m not a native speaker though. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]