Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Formatting request

Could people posting suggestions here please use the same formatting that is used in the main page blurbs? That is to say, (1) remove all endlines, (2) remove all ref tags (3) link the title to the article (4) remove all extraneous bolding (5) trim birth/death dates down to year only (6) remove all alternate names (7) trim down the length to roughly 1200 characters or less. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

There's a Featured Article I'd like to suggest for a specific date, but I've no idea how and this page isn't all that helpful on how to do so. Can anyone offer some help? The Clawed One (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one and what date? I'd be happy to estimate the points for you, and tell you how to nominate. And please be sure (it will say near the top of the talk page) that the article hasn't already run.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. The 10th anniversary of the game's release will be August 16th, the date I was going to nominate it for. Ah, also, I'm a very significant contributor the article, the article was promoted in May of this year, and the last time I suggested an FA for a date was in 2007 or before (not sure precisely when, it's been a while though). Hope all that helps. The Clawed One (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Has an FA that you've been a significant contributor to appeared main page?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I've edited a few FAs before they were featured, but not in any significant way. The Clawed One (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be you get two points for a 10th anniversary, one for first TFA for you, three points total. What you need to do is make up a "blurb", such as you see on the request page. Simplest simply to cut and paste text from your article's lede into the format you see there, just use the same markup and delete the old text and save your effort to your sandbox. When you are ready, you can nominate by adding it to the TFA/R page. If you need help making the blurb, let me know. You are free to nominate any time that there is a vacancy, a lower point article, or an article that has attracted over 50 percent opposes on the nominations page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much! The Clawed One (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

South Side (Chicago)

I had conservatively estimated that South Side (Chicago) was worth 1 point on August 8th, the date of the Bud Billiken Parade. Can you tell me what the value of Washington, D.C. was on the date of the Inauguration of Barack Obama? It seems like this might be date relevant since the parade is mentioned in the article. Are presidential inaugurations even mentioned in the DC article? Would you say the date is not relevant for Pasadena, CA if it were a FA on the date of a Tournament of Roses Parade or Manhattan or Broadway Avenue if they were FAs on the date of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Are your questions rhetorical? You are a more experienced Wikipedian than I and surely know how to check the history and find out when we ran Washington DC. I get your point generally, and I would say that the Presidential Inauguration in Washington DC is of somewhat greater note than a parade on the South Side of Chicago. The eyes of the world were focused on 20001 on that day. They are not focused on 606whatever on August 8. I would not give a point to Manhattan on Thanksgiving Day. I'd say the South Side of Chicago would be a great article to run if the White Sox (ever) made the World Series again. Pasadena on New Years Day is tricker, I'd really want to give it some thought. I don't have anything against the article, I just think it shouldn't get a date relevance point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. DC it seems was given a point for date relevance for a subject not even mentioned in its article. I thought there was a general rule about finding the subject in the article. I meant Broadway (New York City) BTW. I just did a page move so that Broadway Avenue (Saskatoon) is not the main Broadway Avenue. Surely on Thanksgiving such an article would be given a high priority if it were FA even though the Macy's parade is not as large as the Bud Billiken Parade. Maybe even Midtown Manhattan or Upper West Side would be date-relevant on Thanksgiving since the parade runs through these two areas on Broadway. I guess the fairer comparison would be if Midtown Manhattan and Upper West Side were one article and the Macy's parade fell on a day that is not important to the rest of the nation but was as important a parade as it is, would that article have a high priority on that day. That is sort of what we have here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3)Is this Chicago thingie on national TV even in the three network era, part of one of the most beloved Christmas movies of all time? I'm allergic to straw, Tony.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In truth, I would even give Manhattan priority on Puerto Rican Day Parade. That thing screws up traffic all day. However, just because white people have not heard of the Bud Billiken Parade and do not love it in their hearts does not mean it is not the second largest parade in the nation. For two years, I lived at 35th and 5th in Manhattan (Macy's parade ends at 34th and 6th/Broadway. I enjoy both traditions. All I am saying is that this is a big day for the South Side. Next year the article will have a higher priority because it will be over two years old, but the parade will be the 81st annual, giving it lower date-relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the 81st the 80th anniversary of the first one? Note that you can't get more than one point for date relevance unless the article is about the entity having the anniversary, so we're discussing one point, tops.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The parade started in 1929. This is the 80th anniversary. Normal TFAR counting means this is the year for two points if date relevance is given. In 2010, it would be the 81st annual. Raul is a New Yorker and I lived there for five years. Bud Billiken would be like the PR Day parade in Manhattan on a slightly larger scale with national broadcasts on English language television networks. It impacts the city a great deal and nationally it is known by people of the race/ethnicity that celebrate it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of myself as a knowledgeable person, but I've never heard of it. Tony, the multiple point anniversaries only apply in situations where the anniversary is that of the subject of the article. That is, say, John Calvin and his anniversary earlier in the month. It does not apply to an article, say, on Calvanism, because that concept is not 500 years old this month. This is the way we've done it, Tony, if you want a rule change, propose it, but please make sure it is airtight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain how that explanation applies to the Inauguration again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) - perhaps it was special? Comparing the Inauguration, with many people watching world-wide, to a parade that few outside of Illinois have heard of seems slightly odd to me... Anyway, instead of needless drama here, how about you nom the article and let consensus decide the points?—Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He nommed it at one point, replacing Sirius three days before Sirius's requested date. South Side was replaced a day later by the video game article. If I recall correctly, WDC got one point date relevance, two points as a two year FA, and one point no prior FA's by the nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I nommed it at 1/3 points. A single discussant opined it was worth one point. It was replaced in a matter of hours. I feel consensus may rule it is one point, but have never had an article removed by voice of a single discussant before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff. You claimed one and said you'd like to claim three but were being conservative. The video game still would have been within its rights to remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of non-TFA Featured Articles?

Is there a list of FAs that have not been on the Main Page? Smallbones (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Add this to your monobook.css:

span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

and go to Wikipedia:featured articles. All the ones that have appeared on the main page will be bolded. Raul654 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want just the ones that have not been on the main page you might try

span.has_been_on_main_page{ display: none; } .

All the ones that have appeared on the main page will be invisible. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also a list of those which have appeared here

Thanks; it works (clear the cache after changing monobook is important). This should be very helpful the next time something like the 40th anniversary of the 1st moonlanding comes along and there's nothing to mark it. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page, it would be extremely easy to create Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page; a single edit to the {{#if: {{{maindate|}}} ... }} in {{ArticleHistory}} and then waiting a week or so for the pages to all purge themselves during server downtime, and the category would be populated. This might be a bit more convenient than the monobook way, and it would provide a precise number of non-TFA featured articles, which would be nice. (That number can't be gotten with {{#expr: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles}} - {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page}} }} , because the latter category contains a lot of former featured articles so this subtraction would underestimate the number of current FAs that haven't been featured yet.)

Either way, it's not super-important... but creating a category like this would be easy and I don't see any drawbacks, so why not? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a .css and a .js monobook. Can I add this to my .js?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

CSS is formatting information, JS is executable script content. The browser surround is different, so you can't put CSS in your .js file (or vice versa). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating this page did not work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you use monobook skin (in preferences/appearance), and did you clear your cache (like it says in the box at the top of your monobook.css file)? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I figure out what skin I use?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From Special:Preferences (this is where the "My preferences" link goes) click the "appearance" tab (or link, depending on what skin you're using). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I use Monobook. I think it was the cache thing. It is working now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

Is there any thought on expanding the template to cover the next ninety days, or just repealing the time limit? It is very underutilized.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone objects this weekend (wikitime), I'll expand it to 90 days and see if that works for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph W. Tkach

There is some discrepancy on the prospective point total for Joseph W. Tkach and I am ready to air it out here. I believe he would be a 4-pointer on September 23 (2 for age, 1 for diversity and 1 for anniversary). The diversity point seems to be at issue and I do not understand why.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, for diversity we go strictly by the categories at WP:FA, if the article's category has 49 or fewer articles in it, we give it a bonus point, such as the Birkett article on law that just got nominated. It isn't very complicated, and it is fairly mechanical. And we had a religious leader (Calvin) on July 10, so it doesn't get a point for main page representation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

O.K. then please update the Notes section at WP:TFAR. The category is still listed as point-eligible even though it now has 63 articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. has there been any talk of splitting up the WP:FA cats to have subcats like at WP:GA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted that. The other categories still look good. I think we're safe for a while, though one of them is up to 44.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)