Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 4

message: It seemed to me as if there might be a bias in featured articles toward U.S. subject matter. Today's article was an extreme case — an article not about the U.S. constitution, but about a particular section of it. To quantify the bias, I went through the articles for February/March/April and classified them geographically by their subject matter. If a subject matter was associated with two countries I've put the article under both and marked them with an asterisk*. If the subject matter was associated with more than two countries I have not included them under any of the countries and listed them at the bottom.
* United States (24): poetry of the United States, Battle of Inchon*, Bryce Canyon National Park, Liberal Party of Utah, Roe v. Wade, Sid McMath, Great Lakes Storm, Space Race*, Hilda Doolittle, Ammolite, San Jose, Cannabis rescheduling in the United States, Isaac Asimov*, Pioneer Zephyr, history of the Yosemite area, Julia Stiles, The Supremes, Medal of Honour, The Cantos, Government of Maryland, Galveston Hurricane, Apollo 8, Robert Oppenheimer, Article One of the United States Constitution
* United Kingdom (11): King James Version, Bodyline*, Jonathan wild, Mary I, John Vanbrugh, national parks of England and Wales, Charles II, John Dee, Blackadder, Kylie Minogue*, Order of the Bath
* Russia/USSR (7): history of Russia, Space Race*, Isaac Asimov*, military history of the Soviet Union, El Lissitzky, Garry Kasparov, history of post-Soviet Russia
* Australia (3): Mark Latham, Bodyline*, Kylie Minogue*
* Ireland (3): economy of Ireland, geography of Ireland, Ryanair
* China (2): Octopus card, Bank of China (HK)
* France (2): Suzanne Lenglen, Cardinal Richelieu
* India (2): Gandhi, Sikkim
* South Africa (2): Flag of South Africa, Republic of South Africa
* Thailand (2): Isan, Mor Iam*
* Other countries (12): Canadian Pacific Railway (Canada), Cambodia, Golditz Castle (Germany), 1896 Summer Olympics (Greece), Hrafnkels saga (Iceland), Mordechai Vanunu (Israel), Mor Iam* (Laos), Battle of Inchon* (Korea), Anne Frank (Netherlands), Diego Velazquez (Spain), Tamil (Sri Lanka), Lord's Resistance Army (Uganda)
* Many countries (2): Commonwealth of Nations, League of Nations
* Religious (4): Xenu, Buddhist art, George Fox, name of God in Judaism
* No particular country (20): H II region, Coconut Crab, Albert Einstein, Graffiti, Brolga, Big Bang, Weight training, Chemical warfare, Comet Hale-Bopp, Evolution, Helicobacter pylori, Venus, bicycle, Nintendo, Caesar cipher, Timapni, Aramaic, Krag-Jørgensen, Hydrochloric acid
===Conclusion===
It seems to me that we are featuring far more than enough articles about topics particular to the United States and United Kingdom. Russia, Ireland and Australia have also had a fair go recently, although the numbers are small. We should try to focus more on articles to do with the rest of the world, particularly Africa, India and China. Articles about scientific or technical topics are probably under-represented as well. I was surprised how few articles ended up under "no particular country".
You may argue that the featured articles are merely indicative of Wikipedia as a whole, and you'd be right, but to some extent the featured articles are advertisments of what we would like Wikipedia to be like, so focusing too much on the U.S. and U.K. may be self-reinforcing. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if an article about an article of the U.S. constituion languishes in "candidates for featured articles" for years.
:Your conclusion is flawed. For example, let's compare India-related featured articles (of which 2 were recently featured) with US-related ones (24). Now, (and this is the step you omitted), let's compare the total number of India-related featured articles with the number of US featured articles. As I count them, there are 7 india related featured articles (India, Sikkim, Kalimpong, Mahatma Gandhi, British East India Company, Tamil language, Governor-General of India), of which 6 have been featured on the main page; there are MANY times more US related featured articles (I'd conservately guess 150), of which, I would estimate that roughly half have been featured.  So:
* 7 india related featured articles, 6 featured on the main page (85%); 150 US related featured articles, 75 featured on the main page (50%). 
* In the last two months, 12 US related featured articles for every indian featured article, when Indian featured articles are outnumberd 20-to-1. Therefore, in recent months, Indian featured articles were roughly twice as likely to be picked for the main page than US featured articles. →Raul654 02:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
**I concur with Raul654's assesment of the situation. BrokenSegue 02:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in featured articles 

message: It seems to me that we are featuring far more than enough articles about topics particular to the United States and United Kingdom. Russia, Ireland and Australia have also had a fair go recently, although the numbers are small. We should try to focus more on articles to do with the rest of the world, particularly Africa, India and China. Articles about scientific or technical topics are probably under-represented as well. I was surprised how few articles ended up under "no particular country".
You may argue that the featured articles are merely indicative of Wikipedia as a whole, and you'd be right, but to some extent the featured articles are advertisments of what we would like Wikipedia to be like, so focusing too much on the U.S. and U.K. may be self-reinforcing. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if an article about an article of the U.S. constituion languishes in "candidates for featured articles" for years.
:Your conclusion is flawed. For example, let's compare India-related featured articles (of which 2 were recently featured) with US-related ones (24). Now, (and this is the step you omitted), let's compare the total number of India-related featured articles with the number of US featured articles. As I count them, there are 7 india related featured articles (India, Sikkim, Kalimpong, Mahatma Gandhi, British East India Company, Tamil language, Governor-General of India), of which 6 have been featured on the main page; there are MANY times more US related featured articles (I'd conservately guess 150), of which, I would estimate that roughly half have been featured.  So:
* 7 india related featured articles, 6 featured on the main page (85%); 150 US related featured articles, 75 featured on the main page (50%). 
* In the last two months, 12 US related featured articles for every indian featured article, when Indian featured articles are outnumberd 20-to-1. Therefore, in recent months, Indian featured articles were roughly twice as likely to be picked for the main page than US featured articles. →Raul654 02:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
**I concur with Raul654's assesment of the situation. BrokenSegue 02:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Here are two templates that should be of interest to those with new FA articles either about to appear on the front page or that have appeared there. Simply insert the date the article appeared/will appear on the front page and paste the template into the talk page.
and
Thanks to Hydnjo for coming up with this.--Alabamaboy 19:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *As much as I would love full credit, this template is actually the result of a collaboration between Rick Block and myself. hydnjo talk 22:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA front page templates 

message: The Korea Times: Wikipedia Features StarCraft Story: is this the first time Wikipedia's choice of FA is the subject of a newspaper article?  --  user:zanimum
:Wikipedia, the globally renowned online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Thursday picked up the article on StarCraft and its impact on Korea as a feature story of the day.
:StarCraft refers to a real-time strategy game that can be enjoyed by multiple users through the Internet. It is all the rage in Korea, the nation where the Internet access is ubiquitous.  Korea Times, 26-Jan-2006
:Yes, that's interesting. It is an apparently positive Korean domestic piece, and WP is quoted liberally ti flesh out the bit. All the more reason to make sure FAs are all they're supposed to be, and that the process isn't subject to easy oversight and tampering. --Tsavage 16:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article choice is news 

message: I strongly object to featuring this on March 3. Despite my objection, this article is now set to be featured. I don't like saving criticism for the 24 hour countdown, so I thought I'd make my objection heard now. See also the article's talk, and my explanation of how fair use works on WT:RFAR. There is no way that we can feature this without changing the way the article uses images now. Either the images are PD and can go on Commons, which is meant for such galleries, or they are fair use and should not be used so excessively in the article at all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Triumph of the Will]] 

message: Triumph of the Will has a gallery of fair use pictures. There was a notice at the bottom of the article before it was featured on the main page asking readers to view  and the article talk for a discussion of the various images' copyrights, which appeared to imply the article's images are PD -- a rather poor excuse for not just tagging them as such and uploading them to Commons, which is for galleries (Wikipedia is not for galleries of images). However, the article talk only stated:
:Now from what I gathered from discussing both with Riefenstahl and with producer at Synapse Films (they released Triumph of the Will on DVD in the early 2000's) copyright status can and has been avoided in various "versions" of the film (on DVD or VHS or in screening rights). These are versions that may have been held, like the one in the Library of Congress that Synapse utilized as 'public domain' or may have been edited slightly to avoid (is that the right word ?) infringement on Transit (or Riefenstahl for that matter). I have no idea how accurate these claims are but it may help explain why you have so many differing opinions on this matter of who, if anyone, holds the film rights.
The image talk page however, had the input of someone from the German Wikipedia, who stated:
:In deWP we tag PD only images older than 100 years. The reason is the fact that nearly all pictures are to be evaluated as photo work and so a protection of 70 years pma is given.
Template talk:PD-Germany, which was cited by the discussion as evidence that the image was PD, has a notice at the bottom stating that the template was TfDed due to terribly inappropriate wording, and this was only rectified by altering the template's text. Furthermore, :Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg is not even used in Triumph of the Will. From this, I believe we should assume the images are not PD, as there are very stringent laws pertaining to public domain images, especially in Germany. (There was a discussion on IRC earlier about whether the images are PD -- a British statute was cited, which stated that all German works imported into Britain between 1939 and 1951 were in the public domain, but the film was first released in Germany in 1935. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, I believe only United States law applies to it.)
Surprisingly, this troubling issue of fair use/weak claims of public domain, was not addressed by the FAC which passed this article. When it was first suggested for the main page, I brought this issue up. The article was nevertheless slated for the main page. Indignant, I complained in more detail on the TFA talk, and on the article talk. Now today, lo and behold, the article is on the main page, with my complaint having been totally ignored! Since apparently people think this can be just brushed aside nonchalantly because, y'know, them Nazis ain't ever gonna' sue nobody for using their pictures, I've made this excruciatingly detailed and long comment, and I will cross-post it to wherever I feel relevant. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Images. Yes, I know, some will scream m:Avoid copyright paranoia. However, we have insisted on removing fair use images from people's talk pages, even though there is a zero chance of being sued for their use (really, will the US Democratic Party sue us for using their logo in a userbox?), so why should we brush this off when an article supposed to be our best work and appearing on our gateway to the world so blatantly violates the provisions of fair use and/or the definition of a public domain image? Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our featured article of the day has legal problems 

message: Although I'm sure some people would assume this would be a natural feature for St Patrick's Day, I object. Featuring British orders of knighthood makes us look as pro-unionist and partisan. Slac speak up! 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure, and when OpenBSD get's on the front page, that will make Wikipedia look pro-open source and communist? Feel free to make an Eire-related article feature-quality and then put it up here, then we can look pro-republic and partisan.  65.94.60.22 06:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would if we deliberately featured it on Bill Gates' birthday.  Perhaps another, less work-intensive, solution would be to pick one of 364 other days upon which to put the article on the Main Page. Slac speak up! 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dude, don't split people's talk, just respond to it.  That shit is terrible.  65.95.241.86 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Order of Saint Patrick]]

message: to get Sverre of Norway on the main page? Fornadan (t) 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put up the nomination, you feel free to clean it up.  65.95.241.86 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be possible 

message: In a few days time it will be April Fools! Is there a FA related to humour and hasn't been on the main page yet? GizzaChat © 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoo is slated for the April 1 main page. — TKD::Talk 11:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somthing funny for April Fools 

message: Just a note to say that I created an RSS feed that shows the 20 latest entries of Featured Articles, see User:Skagedal/Fafafa. /skagedal... 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RSS feed 

message: I have noticed an inconsistency on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2006, with some TFA using (continued...) to link to the entire article, while others use (Continued...), (More...), or (more...).  Is there a reason for using these variations? or is one of these preferred and should be used all the time? --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that were justed added to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2006 used (continued...), so that seems to be preferred. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation. As for (continued...) versus the others, I have no preference except that we be consistent. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (continued...) and other variations 

message: What happended to todays article? I cleared my cache, but no new article poped up.  xxpor (  Talk |  Contribs ) 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on the main page. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is todays article?  

message: I'd like to suggest that a unique (with a more contextually relevant description) template be made for the Todays Featured Article page, to replace  that is used there currently. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Main Page featured article is generally not protected - see User:Raul654/protection.  Like any other page, I would guess  was added temporarily as a result of a particular spate of vandalism.  There is , but that is used to stop the image on the Main Page being vandalised. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! whoops. i knew that.. Thanks ;) -Quiddity 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion: new header template 

message: I have scheduled, albeit hesitantly, Hopkins School for May 30th. Raul654 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: School as daily FA

message: A while back I placed USS Wisconsin on here for a shot at the main page. Today when I visited the page I noticed that the article had been removed, but I do not see a day that has Wisconsin appearing on the main page, nor do I see a main page appeance template on Wisconsin’s talk page. Was the nomination removed, or was this an oversight? TomStar81 05:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my bad  Raul654 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that explains alot. At least you managed to find it. Thanks ;) TomStar81 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you - Wisconsin is on my short list - yes, I keep a text file on my desktop with the articles I plan to run next ;) Raul654 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing FA request

message: Looking over the front page selection discussion page, I have a question: is there any way of knowing if a FA has been looked at and ruled out as a main page candidate? I'm asking because the articles are clearly not being chosen in chronological order of submission (which of course would be a silly idea anyway). But if something has been ruled out or is still under consideration, it would be nice to know.
Or is the list on this discussion page a list of articles still under consideration?
*AFAIK all featured articles (save a teeny tiny number, such as Wikipedia) are always candidates for the main page. As for the stuff listed here, I've never seen a nomination removed unless the nominator directly withdraws it (for example, the Three Laws of Robotics has been up since January, doesn't even have a suggested box, but is still listed). Staxringold 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way of knowing if a FA is still candidate for the front page? 

message: I like the redesign and merger of TFA and TOFA.  However, a few comments:
*I think we need a more explicit link to the TFA archive than the one buried in the top-left panel.  The TFA archive bar provides a quick and simply link to the archives, which is why I added it back here.  Raul does not seem the like it :p
*An increase the number of people reviewing the front-page blurb would help to avoid infelicities in the wording.  I think that could be achieved by transluding the blurb for today's FA and tomorrow's FA side-by-side on this page.
Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like that... (I went for one after the other, as it was easier, but side-by-side would be better, I think) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you hid the main page purge button? Thanks, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New TFA front page

message: What happened to the Sever Purge Cache link for the main page? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cache 

message: I apologize for this, but I just now noticed that the current introduction set to be used for the June 9th Featured Article is incorrect; since the article became featured the United States Navy has struck both of their battleships and will be donating them to the public in the coming monthes. The last two sentences of the paragraph should read as follows:
:Wisconsin was last decommissioned in September 1991, having earned  a total of six battle stars for war service in Korea and WWII, and a Navy Unit Commendation for service during the first Gulf War, and currently functions as a museum ship at Nauticus, The National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Wisconsin was struck from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR) 17 March 2006, and is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship. 
Again, I apologize for the oversite. Several pages have been effected by this development, and this one just happened to slip through the cracks. TomStar81 01:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA information incorrect

message: I feel that adding USS Wisconsin (BB-64) as the featured article of the day was a rather poor choice. We already had her far more famous sister ship USS Missouri (BB-63) as the featured article of the day back in September of 2005. I don't see there was a need for having this article also appear on the main page. I realize this is after the fact, but I hope some consideration of potential situations like this is made in the future. Asking the question "Have we had something similar featured?" and reviewing past FA's on the main page would be a good step. --Durin 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Wisconsin (BB-64)]] for main page 

message: I've finally managed to put my finger on it. This is why I thought TFA was the whole featured article system for so long as a newbie. It's that phrase... "recently featured". That's not true. The articles have been featured for ages. They have just been recently showcased on TFA. Can't this be changed to something less confusing? I would have loved to have known sooner that there were over a thousand of these listed on one page. BigBlueFish 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know how we can make it more obvious than "more featured articles" linking to the page will all the featured articles. Raul654 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By not using the phrase "recently featured". I thought I made it fairly clear. Even "Recently featured here" would be better. Or "Recently showcased". I don't know. BigBlueFish 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Recently showcased" sounds ok. Titoxd(?!?) 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many portals also use "Showcased Articles" e.g. Portal:London and Portal:Christianity, which may get confusing, but as long as portals can retain this terminology then it's fine. Brisvegas 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Portals use the 'showcase' terminology because *I* changed most of them. I objected to many of them using "Featured article" as a generic term. Raul654 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently featured 

message: All "Today's featured article" templates are currently saved using US format dates (June 6, 2006). I suggest we abandon this for the international standard (2006-06-06) - an unambiguous and clear presentation of the date. Obviously, a list ISO 8601 dates can be numerically sorted into a chronological list and it avoids conflict between those who are used to European formatting and those used to US. Since all existing pages are consistantly named they will easily be moved by a bot. Further, magic words can just as easily be used on the main page as they are for US format dates. --Oldak Quill 20:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like a lot of work for, IMO, few benefits. Raul654 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything, 6 June 2006 might be worth it, but the template names are all hidden, so this does seem trivial.  --  Zanimum 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing from US to ISO 8601 format 

message: This isn't very important, but the article usually changes to the next days featured article about half-way through the day. Microsoft was up for about a few hours, and then it changed to velocial raptors..is this because im from U.S. Central time, so it's suppose to change early, or what? I'm confused. andrew 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft was changed to velocial raptors! Wow! How appropriate,... ;-) Dr. Cash 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Problem

message: Just wondering. Full disclosure: I was the one who largely got it to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be posted here? --Ajm81 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance of making [[Windows 2000]] a main page article? 

message: Why is it that none of the daily featured articles are ever sprotected for the duration of being linked to the main page? They are always a target from IP vandalism on a minute-by-minute basis when they are featured on the Main Page, yet Semi-protection policy specifically mentions that the daily featured article should never be sprotected, yet the featured picture of the day is protected. Ryūlóng 01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul, why not tidy-up that page a bit, move it to Wikipedia space, and place a sentence at the top of this talk ("If you are considering suggesting...read this")? Marskell 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of protection 

message: :Quote: Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page. (For example, Wikipedia would not appear, because it is considered shameless self-promotion).
Where could we find this list? --Xyz or die 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of a brain-scanning device, nowhere - it's entirely in my head. Raul654 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial list 

message: With a recent Willy-on-Wheels-type vandalism that struck today's featured article, the article was move-protected to prevent similar attacks. Since articles cannot be sprotected as that would take away from the everyone-can-edit openness of Wikipedia, why not move-protect the day's featured articles. Certainly the best articles that Wikipedia has produced should not be moved dramatically when they are shown to everyone who visits the website. Ryūlóng 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that Brian0918 has been move-protecting daily FAs for a while now. I don't really have any objection to that. Raul654 06:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of protection (part deux) 

message: Since it occured with Bulbasaur, perhaps the various templates that are utilized in the day's featured article should be sprotected as well. There were multiple times that unscrupulous editors altered the templates transcluded in Bulbasaur, and at one point may have had the photograph of a man masturbating transcluded onto the main page until the template it was used in was sprotected. I doubt that this vandalism was solely due to the content being a Pokémon, but the vandalism to the templates could avoid vandalism that occured yesterday. Ryūlóng 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of work to do. I'll make sure to substitute out any templates from the main page blurb, but beyond that, protecting all transcluded templates seems like a lot of work for little gain. Raul654 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps just templates that are transcluded on the main page through the featured article thing, as with Bulbasaur,  was vandalized, and that may have led to several instances where an image on the commons of a man masturbating was seen on the main page. Ryūlóng 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware of that, which is why I said 'I'll make sure to substitute out any templates from the main page blurb' Raul654 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Protection (Volume III) 

message: Is there any point in updating the blubs that are in the archive?  Specifcally, should DAB fixes be applied to them for those who are involved with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links?  Thanks in advance for your response. --Brian G 02:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't really see a point. Raul654 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's FA Archive 

message: Criterion #9 in our image fair use policy expressly forbids the use of fair-use images outside of article space. I understand that an exception is habitually made for articles being currently featured on the main page. But what about the fair-use images in Wikipedia-namespace pages like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2006, i.e. archived examples of previously main-page-featured blurbs? For example, in the page just linked, we have :Image:Schabir_Shaik.jpg, :Image:Kargil Bofors.jpg, etc. So does the exception extend to the use of these images? What about the ones posted in proposed blurbs on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Requests? Andrew Levine 22:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note.  Today's featured article, Watchmen, contains a fair use image, on the Main Page.  I don't see the necessity of including fair use images on the Main Page, notably when our policy expressly forbids it.  I'd like to see some clarification, before we run the risk of encountering legal troubles as a result of it.  Bastique▼parler voir 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in Wikipedia namespace (TFA) 

message: Why is there an extra /div tag being placed after the main content of the template. There's no corresponding beginning div tag and it's affecting the way my user page looks. It's not necessary. Harryboyles 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra div tag 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2005 has a broken image link. Needs admin to fix. --Quiddity 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken image in archived copies 

message: Tztz, interesting to put Lost as today's featured article a day before upcoming season's beginning. Maybe in the future other media events get featured as well - a first step towards "Wikipedia is today sponsored by...". --Abdull 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that was one of the reasons it was chosen for today. This happens a lot: we feature articles about particular events on their anniversaries, articles about particular people on their dates of birth or death, etc. It's a very long step from picking 'today's featured article' because it has an immediate relevance to a particular day to 'selling out' to the media corporates. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Nick Boalch's comment. -- Buffyverse 00:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, ABC was all too happy to give cash to this poor graduate student in exchange for featuring Lost on the main page. Just wait until you see what's cooking for sweeps week :) Raul654 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiousity, was it pure chance that V for Vendetta (film) was featured on 5 November? Laïka 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lost'' as today's featured article / sell out 

message: According to the licensing for Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg:
Permission Note -- written permission was received from AP on 31 March 2005 which states:
:: Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press
Please tag all thumbnails with "Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press " to ensure compliance.
Shouldn't the use of the thumbnail be so tagged? WLD 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation on Iwo Jima image? 

message: I've made a couple of minor changes to the first paragraph of the Roosevelt article. Can the same changes be made to the template destined for the main page?
I'd like to note in passing that the variety of articles being featured is a lot better than it was a while ago when I moaned about a US/UK bias. Good work!
Ben Arnold 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt 

message: With the US midterm elections and Donald Rumsfield's resignation in the news today, was there really a need to feature the  Supreme Court of the United States as well?  Perhaps some care can be taken in the future to choose an appropriate featured article to give the front page some balance. It wouldn't hurt to delay the featuring of an article by a few days, would it? Rawr 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I think it is nice to have a front page that seems to all be related.  I do not think it is somethign tha we should do all the time but I don't see the harm, if there were several oil, or enviornmental stories in the news, I think picking "did you know" and featured articlesthat went with the theme would be nice as well.  Dalf | Talk 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High American Political Content 

message: I have changed the image for today's FA from :Image:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg to :Image:Tolkien 1916.jpg (cropped, of course). The latter is in the public domain. Fair use should be used as sparingly as possible, and the PD image sufficiently illustrates the subject, I believe. --Slowking Man 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for [[J. R. R. Tolkien]] 

message: This is an issue I thought of while trying to get an article to FA. I understand WP:NOT#CENSORED and all, but I was just wondering whether this extends to the choice of featured article? I can understand not using swearwords/profanity on the main page, but would an article such as, for example Arctic Monkeys, where both direct quotes and their album titles (Who the Fuck Are Arctic Monkeys for example) feature language which people object to, appear on the front page, and if not, where is the line drawn? Laïka 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensiveness vs "NOTCENSORED" 

message: I was about to suggest that we need to set up a 2007 archive, when I saw that USer:SmthManly did it a couple of weeks ago.  Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007

message: In the featured article civilization is spelled wrong, this must be corrected.
: Please see the (short) discussion on the article's talk page Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions#Images;  civilisation is a correct spelling, particularly in BrE and other English variants.  While the refusal to allow the use of -ization on the part of the article's creator may be debated (in fact, I think I'm about to start that very debate), User:Samsara's comment in that talk page is relevant.  Carre 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  civilization 

message: The article for salsa music as the TFA (Today's Featured Article) has invalid highlighted words, citations, and the how the beats go are out of place. Ace Fighter 14:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salsa Music as TFA 

message: There should be a policy of automatic semiprotection for featured articles. I mean, you don't want to click on History of the board game Monopoly and get pictures of penises. Gaterion 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at length and most agree that the helpful contributions of casual readers who click on the featured article outweighs the trouble of having to police it more strongly than usual. -Elmer Clark 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statistics should be reviewed. There have been perhaps four valid, constructive edits since 00:00 UTC, and I don't know how many vandal edits. And anecdotally I think the problem is only getting worse. --JohnDBuell 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, with this example - lets review. Over a twenty-five hour span of time, from 00:00 UTC on 13 December to 01:00 UTC on 14 December the page was edited no less than 318 times. Breaking that down, there were five administrative actions as some form of protection was attempted. I don't know WHAT, as no semi-protect or protected message appeared on the article. That leaves us with 313. Of that, based on edit summaries, approximately 85 reversions took place against vandals, which struck at least as often. But one has to be careful with this, as some of the anon IP vandals deliberately put "revert", "rv" or something else in their edit summaries to make it look like they made a contribution. There were six "page replacements", three page blankings and two redirections. So, take those 96 (85 reversions, and 11 documented vandals) edits out, and we're left with 217. Without checking every single edit (which I'm not going to do at this time), I'm going to take a guess that half of that were vandals - or just over 100 vandal edits total, with 85 reversions. That leaves maybe, MAYBE one-third of edits in a 25 hour period as being legitimate, and most of those were minor changes in wording, removal of wikilinks, placement of wikilinks, addition of a category, and other trivia. There is NOT a huge difference in the article before it appeared on the main page and now. So I fail to see what purpose that NOT placing a "Today's Featured Article" under semi-protection (not allowing anon edits, and not allowing recently registered users) achieves. --JohnDBuell 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this difference isn't too significant, but I think it would be hard to argue that the article isn't stronger.  Since featured articles are so heavily policed anyway, the damage done by vandalism is fairly minor. -Elmer Clark 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say that it helped either - not ONE reference was added or removed. The only semi-significant changes were that in wording and phrasing. --JohnDBuell 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just FYI, so you know exactly what you are categorizing as "minor":  according to a recent study, the Main Page featured article spends about two hours in a vandalized state during the time that it is linked to as the day's featured article.--DaveOinSF 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you go to Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection and examine the early history, you will clearly see that this well-meaning but misguided decision became policy without significant discussion.--DaveOinSF 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Semiprotect 

message: Theoretically, to keep up with the demands of FAOTD, there has to be more than 1 article per day on average that gets the Featured status every day. If, for example, we now have 1000 FA, we have featured 500 of them on the main page, and the rate of new FAs is 0.5 articles per day (1 FA status in 2 days), that means we will run out of FAs for FAOTD in 1000 days. --Orang gila 20:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With luck, editors will see that as a call to action to edit more articles to the FA quality level. --JohnDBuell 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so. The first FAOTD was Mozart on February 22, 2004. Between then and now (December 14, 2006) there have been 1025 days, and we have 1197 FAs. That means we still have 1197 - 1025 = 172 FAs that have not been featured on the main page. --Orang gila 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we also have to take into account how many FAOTD have been demoted from FAs, and how many FAs have been demoted from that status WITHOUT being featured on the main page. Plus there are some that any number of us would argue just don't belong on the main page. I would never nominate The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) to be on the main page, because The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy already was. --JohnDBuell 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will we ever run out of Wikipedia Featured Articles to feature on the main page? 

message: "In order for the article to appear on the main page it must have a lead section and image suitable for use on the main page."
Could you expand on this a bit? Buc 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More explanation needed 

message: We've protected the front page; wouldn't it be easy for someone to vandalize the front page by editing this template? --causa sui talk 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mainpage doesn't feed from this page here, it feeds from a separate page that is protected long before the date of featuring becomes available, thus, any edits to this page will be fruitless in messing with the mainpage. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this template be protected? 

message: can a featured article be TFA if it only has fair use images? Nespresso 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there have been such instances before, and a FU image was displayed on the front page.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non fair use images only?

message: Shouldn't the today's featured article pages such as this:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2007 be protected. Surely anyone can enter any artical they want and make it look like it's going to be on the main page.Buc 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul is the FA coordinator, so when an admin is protecting the template, he/she can make sure if it is the appropriately chosen article. Nishkid64 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article pages 

message: For today's FA (1/23), it fails to mention yesterday's FA (Indian Standard Time). Small error, you guys might want to fix it. JHMM13 (T | C)   00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Standard Time 

message: is their a certain amount of time an article should be a FA before apperaring on the Main Page? The Placebo Effect 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can't appear on the Main Page the same month it was promoted or the month after. I say this because my first FA, Damon Hill, reached FA status in June last year and appeared on the Main Page in August the same year. But I don't know for sure whether or not that was the case for all the articles. --Phill talk Edits 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, there's no rule behind that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time between FA and MP 

message: Today's featured article (Ian Thorpe) has no image: the image that was originally in the article was one from Flickr which turned out to be a copyvio. I've noticed that we tend to be a bit slow, and only notice problematic images when they are on the main page. Ideally, the FAC process should pick up on these concerns; but FAC is not FPC and reviewers may well overlook this. In any case, the image selected may not have been in the article at the time of FAC so we should check it before it is on the main page in any case.
I've created a table in my userspace to analyse the past months TFA images. Out of the 26 images, fully a third of them I am not 100% sure are ok. Whilst I am being overly cautious, I think this indicates a serious problem. We should be giving the images a decent examination before they appear on the Main page...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for TFA 

message: Could we have some minor additions to the intro? One would be "The most common dishes were potages and stews" and the other would be a qualification for the sweet-sour flavor. I think it's important to point out that it was a late medieval thang rather than something that permeated the entire period.
Peter Isotalo 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow's article (5th April) 

message: (From Talk:Main page) Often, when an article about a subject such as Scooby Doo is featured, there's no free images which can illustrate the topic, and fair use images aren't allowed. Nevertheless, the page feels unbalanced without an image in the top left since every other section has one. Therefore, what about using :Image:Featured article star.svg? It's not perfect by any means, but at least it keeps the main page feeling balanced. I've created a test here, demonstrating how it could work. Laïka 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles without a suitable pic 

message: (also mentioned at Talk:Main page)  On my monitor, both on this page and on the main page, the text of the TFA blurb currently doesn't wrap at all, but runs right out of the frame and on through several horizontal screens.  On the main page it ploughs right through the "In the news" template and renders both illegible.
I am running oldish software, but this is only happening with TFA, and only in the last few days.  I can't pinpoint what day it started, because oddly the problem doesn't happen on the Archive page.  
Anybody understand what's happening here?
Also what happened to the (more...) link at the end of the blurb?  It's disappeared all of a sudden.
Thanks, —Turangalila talk 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template frame broken?  and what happened to "more..."? 

message: I've just finished going through the TFA archives from 2005, and I've been replacing dead image links or removing them (or requesting this when the subpage was protected). Some I had to leave, as there are no free image currently available, but the following have been updated (or should be soon) with new images:
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 20, 2005 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 29, 2005 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2005 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 4, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2005 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 24, 2005 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 25, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 8, 2005
The (*) ones are where the subpage was still protected and I requested the edit. If anyone here has time, could they check they agree with the use of the new images and whether they are suitably free images. The reason for doing this image updating? It improves the look of the archives, and also improves the reuse of the subpages at places like Wikipedia:Featured content. Would doing the same for the subpages for 2004, 2006 and 2007 be helpful? Carcharoth 01:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying up archives from 2005 

message: Following on from the above section, I've looked through the rest of the archives and removed/replaced several more deleted images, in many cases using new free images that have been uploaded in the year or so since the article first appeared on the main page. For the record, the pages where image changes were involved, and that have new images (or have requests for new images to be placed on protected pages) are:
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 4, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 6, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 8, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 8, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 11, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 12, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 12, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 18, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 19, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 20, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 20, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 22, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 24, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 25, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 26, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 26, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 27, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 30, 2006 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2006 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 6, 2006 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 8, 2006 (*)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 8, 2006 (*) Request declined. Raul654 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. The pages have been unprotected now, but I don't have time to do the suggested edits or remove the "editprotected" thingies. Pfft. That will have to wait until I get back, unless someone else gets there first. Carcharoth 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All done now, I think. Thanks for the page unprotection. Carcharoth 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rest of archives checked (2004, 2006 and 2007) 

message: In my near five month tenure as an administrator, I've seen a handful of instances where issues have arisen with the image in the featured article of the day template, always when an image is non-free content. With the current featured article, Final Fantasy VI, the image was originally the game's box art. Pharos replaced it with a photograph of an SNES. Last week, Excel Saga was the featured article and the page had a scan of the manga's cover. It was replaced by a photograph of the writer who was dressed up as one of the characters. When Scooby-Doo was the featured article, things went back and forth with images that were deemed either "derivative works" or the placement of a photograph of a great dane was "misleading." This is clearly an issue when it comes to other featured articles of which there is no free alternative to visually depict the subject. The Main Page is in the article space (currently). The only issues would be a rationale for the use of the non-free image when its on the main page (meaning that the Today's featured article pages would need to include text relating to its usage) and the transclusion of the image where it's a user page template. These issues could be solved, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, . That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want to use a non-free image on the main page at all. Last time shit like this came up, I said that selecting an image to accompany each article (if/when it appears on the main page) is something that needs to be decided when nominating the article to be an FA, not 24 hours before crunch time. This needs to be re-iterated. —freak(talk) 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if a suitable image is not found, then what? The article never shows up on the Main Page? The article is declined as featured?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I really don't care what the outlook is for such articles. That's for the FAC people to decide. I'm just sick of arguing about it when it's too late. —freak(talk) 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a written policy one way or the other on this issue? The curent main page FA (Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and the main page 

message: I added a few wikilinks in the page, can someone please update what will actually be on the main page with those wikilinks? I guess it is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2007 which can not be edited by me, guess you have to be an admin? --Stefan talk 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oceanic whitetip shark]] tomorrows FA 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Title has been created as a bot-updated page with the name of today's featured article on it. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Title can be used to watch changes to TFA, and the page can be transcluded onto larger related changes watchlists for the same functionality. Λυδαcιτγ 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchable TFA page 

message: Today's doesn't have its image on the main page. It's a bit disturbing for an article about a painting. How come?--SidiLemine 09:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Main Page.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: :Thread started as follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Non-free images in project space. Carcharoth 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in TFA archives (redux) 

message: This is a list of 22 TFA blurbs that had redlinks on 19 August 2007, or had other problems that needed fixing. The reasons range from renaming of images at Commons, images being deleted at Commons, images being deleted on Wikipedia, and others. The fixes involve removing the redlink, fixing the link, finding a free picture, and others.
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 11, 2004 (image deleted on Commons on 2 July 2007:. Redlink in TFA blurb replaced with a free image.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2004 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 27 May 2007:. Redlink removed from TFA blurb.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2004 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 15 July 2007:. Redlink in TFA blurb replaced with a free image.) 
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2004 (image deleted on Commons on 8 June 2007:. Redlink removed from TFA blurb.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 9, 2004 (image moved to Commons and deleted as 'no source' on 25 May 2007:. Redlink in TFA blurb replaced with a free image.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2004 (image replaced by GnomeBot placeholder on 19 May 2007:. Placeholder image replaced by free image.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2004 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 31 March 2007:. Redlink in TFA blurb replaced with a free image.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2005 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 5 June 2007 and 27 July 2007:. A free image had, in fact, been available since late 2005 (supplied after the article had been featured on the main page). Edit protected request made to have this free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 7, 2005 (image moved to Commons and deleted there on 2 July 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 13, 2005 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 27 May 2007:. Redlink in TFA blurb replaced with a free image.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 8, 2005 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 21 July 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 21, 2005 (image moved to Commons and deleted on 17 June 2007: (no reason given).  Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 19, 2005 (image deleted on Commons on 22 July 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 5, 2006 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 18 July 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 14, 2006 (image deleted on Commons on 8 June 2007:. Redlink removed from TFA blurb.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2006 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 20 June 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 30, 2006 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 14 July 2007:IfD. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.) 
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 8, 2006 (image deleted on Wikipedia on 27 May 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2006 (image deleted on Commons on 8 July 2007:. Edit protected request made to have the redlink removed (no free image could be found):.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2007 (image moved to Commons and deleted on 14 June 2007:. Edit protected request made to have a free image placed on the blurb:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2007 (image link inlined on 1 July 2007:.  Edit protected request made to remove inline image link:.)
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2007 (image deleted on Commons as a duplicate on 17 July 2007:. Edit protected request made to either change the link to the correct name, or remove the redlink:.)
Notes added later. Carcharoth 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TFA blurbs with redlinks

message: To be added later. Carcharoth 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TFA blurbs without pictures

message: I may have missed some discussion on this, sorry if I did. But how difficult will it be to start mentioning the number of FAs on the main page again? As I understand it from the history of :Template:TFAfooter, what happened was we were using :Template:FA number but then we started using a bot but then cascading protection stopped the bot from working so we went back to nothing at all. At about the same time, there was then some concern about having to manually update the template and the FA count in WP:FA so eventually the template was changed so it uses WP:FA directly. User talk:Marskell/Archive 14#FFA bot counter. Am I right then that as it stands if we were to use :Template:FA number to put the number on the main page, it will result in cascading protect of the template which will then also result in cascading protection WP:FA i.e. it's unlikely to be an acceptable option? Or alternatively we could go back to using a manually updated template but that will create more work as two numbers will have to be updated and is unlikely to be acceptably either? Is there any other way we could have an FA count on the main page? Nil Einne 11:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of FAs on the main page

message: I know that the philosophy on the use of fair use images has changed over time, and that Fair use images are no longer used on the Main page.  But should they be removed from the archives of "Today's featured article"?  I ran across Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2004, and am wondering if that image should be there.  Corvus cornix 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images

message: The lead on the mainpage claims that "thou" was a second person singular pronoun, which is slightly misleading, since the article lead uses the present tense. I don't think it's really accurate to portray words that are still familiar to many, if only as an archaism, as somehow "deceased".
Peter Isotalo 06:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the tense 

message: The article meant for the main page on October 2, 2007 has a bad wikilink in it. I can't change it so I hope someone else will. JRG 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2, 2007 Article 

message: The lead of the article has been tweaked from three or four main versions of Orion's death to several versions, after discussion on the talk page. Please change the main page blurb to follow, if there is time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed it. In the future, please leave such comments on talk:main page, or on my talk page. Raul654 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orion (mythology)]]

message: There's a quote at Wikipedia:Article development that I'm not sure how to interpret.
The article could also receive the distinction of being featured on the main page (provided, for example, it isn't about a subject that would offend a significant number of readers).
What would 'offend a significant number of our readers'? The Muhammad drawings? Feces? If it only offends a small minority does that make it okay? Isn't this all a bit POV? Is this quote reflective of our policy or should it be removed? I don't like the idea that something should be excluded from the main page because it might be considered offensive by some. If the clitoris, pornography or Piss Christ articles were up to FA standard, I don't see why they shouldn't be featured. I suppose it would be a bit weird to have something like fuck as TFA, and I can't imagine the vandalism it would attract, but what exactly do we define as 'offensive'? (See also #Offensiveness vs "NOTCENSORED" above). Richard001 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining whether or not something is too offensive to go on the main page is left to the FA director's (my) judgment. I have not attempted to define what is or is not too offensive to go there - it's highly subjective - but suffice it to say that out of the current thousand-plus featured articles, I can only think of one that I would be reluctant to put there (Jenna Jameson, porn star). In other words,  it's a narrowly defined category. Raul654 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive material?

message: Yes, I know today is GameFAQs' tenth anniversary, but there's going to be L-Block vandalism all day... Will (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of a silly idea. 

message: There is a section for reporting apparent errors in the proposed TFA for each day, but frequently comments made here are apparently disregarded. Often, with no acknowledgement of these comments or reason stated for not incorporating the suggested changes, they are unremarked upon and left to be deleted when the article in question is removed.
This seems to me to be virtually equivalent to placing an article for peer review, and then neither refuting nor incorporating constructive comments.  If those who have the editing rights over the TFA are not going to treat the error reporting section seriously, then it would be more honest to remove the facility.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen error reports are often acted on or at least responded to. I'm sure there are some cases when they fall through the cracks but I don't think it's that often. One of the biggest problems with TFA error reports is people don't seem to understand that (as the error report section clearly says), editors are always going to defer to the article. If the article says A and you say A should be changed to B, then you have to change the article to say B first. Once this has been accepted then you are welcome to make an error report to have A corrected to B. But admins don't generally have the time or the knowledge to try and work out whether A or B are correct, that is left up to the editors of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point? 

message: Although the Matt Groening image is fine, you could also use the walk of fame star image. --igordebraga ≠ 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons 

message: The mainpage blurb for Swedish emigration to the United States uses a black and white photo of sugar beet harvesters that looks a bit dull even at a larger size. Wouldn't it better to use :Image:Aquitaniaposter.PNG instead? Here's what it would look at 100px.
Peter Isotalo 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish emigration 

message: I think Raul does a fine job of scheduling TFAs.  I was just wondering if there was a method to determine which FAs have been waiting longer in each category.  I wonder if this list is used (Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page) and if so, I wonder if there is a way to somehow list the date it was promoted for ease of older FA selections.  Just curious.  Thanks.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, promotion date is a non-consideration. There is some effort to make it a consideration insofar as requests so. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, no, I do not use that list. I do it the proper way - which is, I have a second account that I log in with, which uses monobook (that I can't stand otherwise). In its monobook.css, it had the code necessary to bold all the articles in wikipedia:featured articles that have appeared on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I've wondered about the "automatic bolding" of the TFA when it doesn't look bolded -- lol.  :)  Anyway, thanks for your time, again, was just curious.  Cheers.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Older FAs waiting for main page

message: I was trying to double check a date later in the year using the calendar and found an error. March 2008 is off and thus all the subsequent months are too. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2008. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar error 

message: What's the practice for doing this? There's an article which would be good for February 17 () but it's been there once already. Will (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how many are waiting for TFA, this is not a go, I think. People are already quite anxious to see their newer ones go up. Marskell (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycling old TFAs from 2003/4? 

message: I have some concerns about the featured article for January 31.  The title of the article is not in bold, there are a few typos and mostly I'm concerned about the major MOS breach.  The subject is an American citizen but the blurb is written in British English. --JayHenry (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable. :0 Wrad (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 31