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

< Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:35, 14 August 2012 editBr'er Rabbit (talk \| contribs)8,858 edits →Rationale for 5-article limit? Proposal to increase to 10: {{sofixit}}← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,674 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 18) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/pending\|style=width:23em; font-size:88%;}}
	{{shortcut\|WT:TFAR}}		{{shortcut\|WT:TFAR}}
			{{See also\|Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches{{!}}the 2008 Signpost article (updated 2016) "Choosing Today's Featured Article"\|Template:TFA-editnotice{{!}}the editnotice for TFAs\|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/emergency{{!}}the blurbs that can be used in the event of a TFA emergency}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|counter = 18
			\|minthreadsleft = 2
			\|algo = old(35d)
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
	{{Archive box		{{Archive box
	\|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;		\|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
	\|auto = long		\|auto = long
	\|search = yes		\|search = yes
	\|~~prefix~~ = Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/		\|searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/
	\|bot=MiszaBot		\|bot=MiszaBot II
	\|age=14		\|age=14
	}}		}}
			__TOC__
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/pending\|style=float:none; clear:none; margin:auto;}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 13
	\|minthreadsleft = 2
	\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{for\|the Signpost article, Choosing Today's Featured Article\|Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches}}
	{{for\|helpful hints relating to requests\|User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts}}
	{{for\|the editnotice template to be used for the TFA editnotice\|Template:TFA-editnotice}}
	{{for\|the emergency blurbs to be used in the event no TFA is selected in time\|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/emergency}}

	== Rationale for 5-article limit? Proposal to increase to 10 ==

	What is the rationale for the 5-article limit? I surmise from the wording at the top of the TFAR page that, a few years ago, there were a large number of nominations, and it was an overwhelming job to manage them. (From 2008: ''"As the number of featured articles has increased, the competition for a slot on the Main Page has also increased. As of August 2008, more than 975 featured articles are still waiting to appear on the Main Page—more than a third of them for longer than a year."'') So a limit of 5 made the job manageable, perhaps? But doesn't that lead to a situation where, say, tomorrow has no article listed because the five top scorers are 2 weeks away? I know the Pending list can identify near-term low point articles, but there is no blurb available. So there could easily arise a situation like:
	* Sept 1 - 2 points, no blurb, not in main list
	* Sept 12 - 5 points
	* Sept 13 - 5 points
	* Sept 14 - 5 points
	* Sept 15 - 5 points
	* Sept 16 - 5 points
	And when Sept 1 arrives, that article should be considered, but there is no blurb for it. The limit of 5 doesn't seem to serve a purpose any longer, and even has some downsides. My recommendation would be to keep the window at 30 days lead time, but increase the limit of the main blurb list from 5 to about 20. (BTW: I ask this out of curiosity - the limit of five is not impacting me personally; but it may be confusing to other editors as well). --] (]) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
	:I wondered about this too, it appears that this has lead to it being very easy to nominate for non-specific dates, because these are just used as quick filler for the many upcoming days with no date-relevant articles nominated for them. Which is a shame. I think the limit could easily be put to ten, and we'd get more date-relevant, instead of random, articles. ] (]) 15:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

	::Someone and the answer is the same. Nobody who remembers the free-for-all into which this page degenerated, has any desire to go back. There are few FA writers who actually want their articles on the main page, and those that do generally find no problems with the current system (or with just pinging Raul on his talkpage if they don't want to go through this bureaucracy). I can't imagine Raul will take a step which will make his job significantly harder, and be of no obvious benefit to anyone other than the drive-by nominators who seem to see it as a badge of honour to rack up nominations here. ] (]) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but if multiple editors nominating for TFAR are bringing up this confusing situation (including me), is that not reason to at least ''consider'' the pros and cons of improving the process? That prior Talk page you mention had virtually no discussion of the question, and did not reach any conclusion. We all have limited time to devote to volunteering on WP, and it behooves us to make the proceses as simple and friendly as possible. --] (]) 15:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
	::::Also, Raul may be the de facto director for the foreseeable future, but the TFA process is still a community one... If the community feels the process needs some changes (and as this is raised every month, I think they do), then start discussing them, instead of discussing whether to discuss them! - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Fine. I hereby propose to increase the number of date-specific articles in the TFAR list from five to ten. --] (]) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Ping. Any objections to increasing to 10? --] (]) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Be bold.--] (]) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Okay, I increased the 5 to 10 per the above rationale. I don't see any downsides, but if anyone objects, let's continue the conversation. --] (]) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::I've looked through the links to the old system and I agree that it was a mess, mainly because there was no effort to group noms by date, only by subject. I see no real problem with extending the current system to 10 noms at a time so we can avoid pointless bottlenecks like happened with my nom of {{USS\|New Ironsides}} where I was late in submitting it.--] (]) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Just move the Olmec heads to the next open date. The ship obviously gets the 21st. ] (]) 20:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

	== August 11 ==

	Is the postponed ] still penciled in for August 11?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Not yet. See ]. ''']''' (] • ]) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
	::That is not what I mean. It was scheduled about two months ago and I that {{user\|Raul654}} postpone it to August 11 (the date of the ]). He unscheduled it for that purpose. I am asking do I need to officially make it a non-specific date request for that date. It is ineligible for a date-specific request for that date.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Can I get some guidance here?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::At the time of writing, there are only two nominations overleaf for specific dates, neither of which is for August 11. Nominate the article and mention the history. ]] 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Technically, this is not date relevant for August 11.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::So what? You can still nominate it for a specific date even if you can't claim a date relevance point. That has always been the case on TFAR. ]] 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Tony, I think you should just leave a message on Raul's talk page reminding him that the article was previously scheduled for the main page but then delayed when you asked for it to run on August 11. As I've explained a little further down on this page, by my interpretation of the nominating rules you can't nominate it on this page right now since the page is full and it doesn't have more points than another nomination. However, I think if you just remind Raul about your request to delay it to August 11, he would probably schedule it without it needing to be requested here. ] (]) 14:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Note that the August 11 2pt nomination was made before the August 3 2pt nomination. We can't set a policy were people can bump other articles by claiming the wrong number of points and then saying they are already on the page once the points are reduced.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::What I would suggest under such circumstances is to put a note either on that date's TFA page, or on that talk page, reminding the director or delegate of what was said, and providing a diff if relevant.--] (]) 13:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::"Note that the August 11 2pt nomination was made before the August 3 2pt nomination." For future reference, if anyone cares, that's not right; TtT's nomination was the 6th on the page (at a time when only 5 were allowed). ]] 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

	== Request precedence ==

	This is the first time that I have been involved in this process, so I don't want to cause trouble by making unnecessary edits to the request page, but I am not sure why my nomination of ] has been superseded by ], as both articles are credited with the same number of points, but my request is for an earlier date, so does it have priority? Or does that only apply when choosing between articles to replace with one's own request? If I were to unhide my request and re-hide the South Side request, what would happen? Thanks,--<font face="Forte">]]</font> 14:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I don't think you can replace a nomination with another nomination with the same number of points, unless the nomination you are replacing has at least 5 votes and at least 50% opposes. Your nomination should still be on the page. I think this situation was partially caused by you placing your nomination in the wrong place (it should be at the top of the "date requests" section, not at the bottom). However, even if your request were actually for a later date than ], I don't think ] could replace it. The rules say "If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours . . .". While the first note on which article to replace (about requests with 50% opposes) says to ignore points, the third note (the one involving earlier and later requested dates) doesn't say anything about that. So you should only be applying the instructions in the third note after you have determined that the article you are nominating has more points than at least one of the nominations that are already present. Basically, those appear to me to be instructions on which nomination to replace when your nomination has more points than multiple other nominations, and do not allow nominations to be replaced by other nominations with the same number of points. So I think ] shouldn't have been nominated at all, as it didn't have more points than any of the other nominations already on the page. ] (]) 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Agree with Calathan - South Side cannot be nominated unless it has more points than an article it is replacing, or an article has sufficient opposes to make it removable, as stated in the instructions. The instructions do '''not''' allow for unopposed articles to be remove by articles with the same number of points. However, as the grand prix article is nominated for August 3 it will either be selected or fall off the page very soon, and then Tony can continue with the nomination of the South Side article. I will now unhide the grand prix nomination and move it to the top of the page, and rehide the South Side blurb. ]] 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Note that the 2pt August 11 nomination was made before the 2pt August 3 nomination. Do we want to set a policy where people can bump other articles by "accidentally" claiming the wrong number of points.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Now I am a bit confused on when the August 3 article was nominated. It appeared that there were only 4 nominations when I nominated my article. Something may have been wrong with the formattign of the page however. Was August 3 nominated without proper page formatting before my article?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I submitted my nomination about eight hours before you, but, as has been pointed out above, I submitted it at the bottom of the page by mistake, instead of the top. Sorry if this caused any confusion.--<font face="Forte">]]</font> 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::{{ec}} diff is the grand prix being added; you can see from it that it's the fifth date request present. diff shows you adding South Side, bringing the total to six date requests. The times on each diff also show the prix being first. The prix hadn't been added to the summary table yet, which may be the source of your confusion, but the request and blurb were already present. ] ] 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::USS New Ironsides has more points than both, but since it just became eligible, and there's no other article for its date, I'll hold off formally nominating it until some of these earlier dates have been taken care of.--] (]) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

	My request was not successful, so I have removed it and unhidden the South Side nomination.--<font face="Forte">]]</font> 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Note that the reason I didn't use this nomination is that we had a sports figure recently, and I'm planning to do an Olympics-related one in the near future; and we have another one requested for August 8 (which will probably not be granted either). ] (]) 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the rationale; it's perfectly understandable! I'll set my alarm for next August... ;) --<font face="Forte">]]</font> 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

	== Timing ==

	There's a continuing issue with late notices to the principal editors of TFAs as articles are not being chosen until the last moment. This has been addressed with the FA director multiple times, nevertheless, it's still the situation. I would suggest that the community consider recommending to Raul the appointment of a second TFA delegate, with the instruction to make selections (unless Raul or Dabomb has) seven days in advance. Possibly the community could also consider recommending a specific person, though I firmly rule myself out for the appointment.--] (]) 13:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

	: This is a job for Malleus. I'll let him know. ] (]) 14:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

	:* {{diff\|User talk:Malleus Fatuorum\|506895462\|506892894\|"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."}}
	:*: Gonna point Brian at this ;) ] (]) 16:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

	Since apparently the lesson didn't sink in from the last time you tried this stunt -- you (Wehwalt and Br'er Rabbit) are not the featured article director. You do not get to make or solicit such appointments. ] (]) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

	:I would suggest you think about it this way: If Brian is appointed, the work will get done, and Br'er and I have already committed to supporting him. Thus, you put yourself in a position where editors are no longer grumbling about last minute notifications, and those you list as your opposition have already committed to supporting Brian as your appointee. It sounds like a win-win to me.--] (]) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

	::I realize there is a problem with late scheduling. That is my problem and I am taking steps to remedy it.
	::Where you are concerned, however -- you've already done enough damage to the process, what with your hijacking of the RFC and with your roles in hounding Sandy off of Misplaced Pages, not to mention your current attempt. So thank you for your suggestions. You can count on me to give them the full weight they deserve. ] (]) 16:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::It looks like you've won then Raul, time to ]? ] (]) 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

	== noms... ==

	Question(s): I've never been much of a star or green circle collector (for reasons I'll not go into here), so excuse me if I'm a fish out of water here. What are the proper protocols (and common courtesies) of asking for a TFA? I noticed ] the other day was a FA, but had never been featured on TFA. (although at least 1 other FA has been featured more than once). I didn't create the article. I didn't expand it. I didn't put it up for FAC. And I don't know what the "points" are all about. Any assistance is appreciated. Thank you. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
	:The principal author had previously requested that that article not be TFA. She's not currently active, so it's up to you whether you want to respect that request - just putting it out there. If you decide you do want to go ahead, you could either look for a relevant date, or stick it in one of the two non-specific date slots (both of which are currently empty). For a non-specific slot, it would probably have about 6 points. ] (]) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

	:: I have no desire to disrespect anyone .... request withdrawn ... — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 03:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

	:::I am a bit sad to see that, because Amazing Grace would we a good statement between all the battles ;) Perhaps contact the principal author? --] (]) 06:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

			==Categories==
	::::I'm really curious to know the backstory for why the primary author wants ] excluded from TFA. -- ''']''' 11:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
			Literally every month without fail, at some point during the month a run of ] suddenly throws up a redlinked category of the "Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from " variety (e.g. {{cl\|Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from July 2024}}) which I end up having to create on your behalf, even though I'm not normally involved in this project, because of the rule around not leaving stuff in redlinked categories. So if such categories are routinely expected to exist, then would it be possible for this project to take steps to ensure that they get created either by a project member as soon as they're needed, or automatically by a bot at the beginning of the month, before they turn into work for other projects to clean up? ] (]) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

	:~~::::She's~~ ~~retired,~~ ~~and~~ I ~~won~~'t ~~even~~ ~~pretend~~ to be ~~sorry~~ ~~about~~ ~~that~~ ~~one~~. ~~Sorry~~, ~~but~~ ~~Moni3~~ ~~caused~~ me ~~considerable~~ ~~distress~~ ~~with~~ ~~her~~ ~~attacks~~ on me in ~~January~~.--] (]) 12:02, 14 ~~August~~ ~~2012~~ (UTC)		:I have no idea. I've been a coordinator for seven years and I have no idea what this is. At a guess, I'd say it's something produced by the template when TFA/R nominations are created. ] (]) 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
			::{{replyto\|Bearcat\|Wehwalt}} these categories are a direct effect of a TFAR being accepted and scheduled. See for example {{cl\|Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024}} where all of the five TFAs were placed in the monthly category by edits {{diff\|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Battle of Cane Hill\|prev\|1250941534\|like this}}, made either by {{user\|Gog the Mild}} or by {{user\|SchroCat}}, who used {{tlxs\|TFAR top\|2=monthyear=October 2024\|3=passed=y\|4=date=November 28, 2024}} (or something similar). So I think that it's up to these people to notice the redlink that may appear in the category box following an edit like that, and to create the category page to suit. --] 🌹 (]) 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sure, except they very routinely ''don't'', because it always, every month without fail, gets picked up by the WantedCategories report and thus always, every month without fail, ends up becoming ''my'' job. ] (]) 20:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::I guess the two obvious questions I have are, is it worth having categories like this, and in either case, what's the most efficient course of action? ] (]) 20:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Having read the discussion to this point three times I have no idea what it is about, what if anything I am doing wrong, or how if at all I need to amend my practices. Would it be possible for someone to talk it through a level or two down? Thanks. ] (]) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{replyto\|Gog the Mild}} OK. When SchroCat made {{diff\|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Wells Cathedral 1\|prev\|1249097118\|this edit}} on 3 October 2024 (and I'm sure that it was a correct action), it put ] into {{cl\|Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024}}, but the category page didn't exist at the time - Bearcat had to create it themselves the following day after being alerted by the presence of that cat in ]. It's something that they have been going on about at VPT and other places for ''months'', if not years. --] 🌹 (]) 20:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I see, I think. Is there a way to automate the creation so we are sure not to cause you any further problems? ] (]) 21:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Or, alternatively, to alter the code so that this is no longer created? Because I suspect it gets next to no page views. As you saw by my initial reaction, it's not something useful in TFA land.] (]) 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Agree. Is there a point to {{c\|Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024}}? I'm new to scheduling and it's already an involved multi-step process, so not adding yet another step would be the better pathway. - ] (]) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC) - ] (]) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::The categorisation was added to ] by {{user\|Bencherlite}}, the template's creator. Why it was done, or if it is necessary, I don't know; but Bencherlite is ] so can't be asked. --] 🌹 (]) 07:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::: - to me at least. There's also nothing in the archives of this page or of Bench's talk page where there was a discussion that led to it. It seems superfluous to requirements. - ] (]) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I agree. Simply remove the code that produces this and no more problem, and we don't get talked about on VPT, wherever that is, and elsewhere. Can we agree to do this? ] (]) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::VPT = ]. --] 🌹 (]) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

			== December nominations ==
	::::::I didn't look up who the editor was, but wouldn't amazing grace provide the best healing? --] (]) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

			As scheduling coordinator for December, I announce that nominations for any date through 31 December may now be made. ] (]) 12:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: Moni3? ... sigh. Yes, I'm familiar with her. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

	:~~:::::Pot.~~ ~~Kettle.~~ ~~Black~~. ] (]) 12:27, 14 ~~August~~ ~~2012~~ (UTC)		The December schedule will be found ]. Nominations are still welcome and we'll adjust as need be.--] (]) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Sorry, I don't get that. (I got Hammer. Nail. Door.) - I am dealing with ], we have his writing only because his friend ignored his wish to destroy his manuscripts. I can imagine that the "community" would profit from "amazing grace" on the Main page, - then why respect a single author's wish, regardless of who this author is, - no ownership of articles, right? --] (]) 12:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::: He's saying I'm just as bad as Moni. ] is the relevant article.--] (]) 13:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::: Keep digging ;> ] (]) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
	* {{diff\|User talk:Moni3\|prev\|449530666\|Moni's stated reason}} for not wanting Amazing Grace as TFA was "I don't have the time to watch it while the article is on the main page". Since she's now retired, it makes no sense to keep Amazing Grace off the main page. ] (]) 18:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 November 2024

Shortcut

WT:TFAR

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 35 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Shortcuts WP:TFAP WP:TFARP The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from February 1 to March 3. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection. Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns. view • edit • history • watch
Date	Article	Reason	Primary author(s)	Added by (if different)
2025:
February 9	Japanese battleship Tosa	Why	The ed17
March 1	Meurig ab Arthfael	Why	Dudley Miles	Sheila1988
March 10	Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number	Why	NegativeMP1
March 12	2020 Seattle Sounders FC season	Why	SounderBruce
March 18	Edward the Martyr	Why	Amitchell125	Sheila1988
March 26	Pierre Boulez	Why	Dmass	Sheila1988
April 12	Dolly de Leon	Why	Pseud 14
April 15	Lady Blue (TV series)	Why	Aoba47	Harizotoh9
April 18	Battle of Poison Spring	Why	HF
April 24	"I'm God"	Why	Skyshifter
April 25	1925 FA Cup final	Why	Kosack	Dank
May	21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015)	Why	Peacemaker67
May 6	Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories	Why		Harizotoh9
May 10	Ben&Ben	Why	Pseud 14
May 11	Valley Parade	Why		Harizotoh9
May 11	Mother (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
May 17	Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)	Why	Ippantekina	Jlwoodwa
June	The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished	Why	iridescent	Harizotoh9
June 1	Namco	Why		Harizotoh9
June 3	David Evans (RAAF officer)	Why		Harizotoh9
June 5	Jaws (film)	Why		750h+
June 6	American logistics in the Northern France campaign	Why	Hawkeye7	Sheila1988
June 8	Barbara Bush	Why		Harizotoh9
June 23	Battle of Groix	Why	Jackyd101	Jlwoodwa
June 26	Donkey Kong Land	Why	TheJoebro64	Jlwoodwa
July 1	Maple syrup	Why	Nikkimaria	Dank
July 7	Gustav Mahler	Why	Brianboulton	Dank
July 14	William Hanna	Why	Rlevse	Dank
July 26	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Tim O'Doherty and Dank
July 29	Tiger	Why	LittleJerry
July 31	Battle of Warsaw (1705)	Why	Imonoz	Harizotoh9
August 4	Death of Ms Dhu	Why	Freikorp	AirshipJungleman29
August 23	Yugoslav torpedo boat T3	Why	Peacemaker67
August 25	Born to Run	Why	Zmbro	Jlwoodwa
August 30	Late Registration	Why		Harizotoh9
September 2	1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season	Why		Harizotoh9
September 6	Hurricane Ophelia (2005)	Why		Harizotoh9
September 20	Myst V: End of Ages	Why		Harizotoh9
September 30 or October 1	Hoover Dam	Why	NortyNort, Wehwalt	Dank
October 1	Yugoslav torpedo boat T4	Why	Peacemaker67
October 3	Spaghetti House siege	Why	SchroCat	Dank
October 10	Tragic Kingdom	Why	EA Swyer	Harizotoh9
October 16	Angela Lansbury	Why	Midnightblueowl	MisawaSakura
October 18	Royal Artillery Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 1	Matanikau Offensive	Why		Harizotoh9
November 19	Water Under the Bridge	Why	MaranoFan
November 20	Nuremberg trials	Why	buidhe	harizotoh9
November 21	Canoe River train crash	Why	Wehwalt
December 25	Marcus Trescothick	Why		Harizotoh9
December 30	William Anderson (RAAF officer)	Why	Ian Rose	Jlwoodwa
2026:
January 27	History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II	Why		Harizotoh9
February 27	Raichu	Why	Kung Fu Man
March 13	Swift Justice	Why		Harizotoh9
May 5	Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
June 1	Rhine campaign of 1796	Why		harizotoh9
June 8	Types Riot	Why	Z1720
July 23	Veronica Clare	Why		Harizotoh9
September 6	Assassination of William McKinley	Why	Wehwalt	czar
September 20	Persona (series)	Why		Harizotoh9
November	The Story of Miss Moppet	Why		Harizotoh9
November 11	U.S. Route 101	Why	SounderBruce
October 15	Easy on Me	Why	MaranoFan
November 20	Tôn Thất Đính	Why		Harizotoh9
December 21	Fredonian Rebellion	Why		Harizotoh9
December 22	Title (song)	Why	MaranoFan
2027:
June	1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)	Why
August 25	Genghis Khan	Why	AirshipJungleman29
October 15	The Motherland Calls	Why	Joeyquism

December nominations

As scheduling coordinator for December, I announce that nominations for any date through 31 December may now be made. Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The December schedule will be found here. Nominations are still welcome and we'll adjust as need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 November 2024

Categories

December nominations