Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

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.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a job for Malleus. I'll let him know. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:43, 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. Raul654 (talk) 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.--Wehwalt (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you've won then Raul, time to raise the flag? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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). --Noleander (talk) 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. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone asked a similar question a few weeks ago 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. 188.28.63.195 (talk) 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. --Noleander (talk) 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! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 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. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ping. Any objections to increasing to 10? --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Be bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 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. --Noleander (talk) 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

August 11

Is the postponed South Side, Chicago still penciled in for August 11?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2012. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not what I mean. It was scheduled about two months ago and I requested that Raul654 (talk · contribs) postpone it to August 11 (the date of the Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic). 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.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I get some guidance here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 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. BencherliteTalk 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Technically, this is not date relevant for August 11.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 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. BencherliteTalk 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. Calathan (talk) 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.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 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.--Wehwalt (talk) 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). BencherliteTalk 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew banned from this page

Since Jack cannot control his trolling on this page, I have decided to take the unusual step of banning him from this page. Any comments he makes here are to be removed on sight. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, that seems a little bit ridiculous. At least ask the community first? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This page isn't a community hang-out. It exists to serve a specific purpose -- to help me coordinate the featured article requests. If it's going to be a forum for trolling, then it's no longer serving its purpose. Raul654 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Amen, I seriously see the blocking tool being abused by too many admins these days smh. Best, Jonatalk to me 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

TFAR is full protected

UH, now that the page is FULL INDEF protected how are people to make nominations and vote or !vote? PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait until it's unprotected. If it's a request for the immediate future, drop a note on my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That page is not about votes; mere suggestion. The whole thing is not how wikis are supposed to work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Raul, I really don't think it's right to keep non-admins from requesting TFA at all, even for a short period of time. Please reconsider. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles

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 Amazing Grace 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. — Ched :  ?  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. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no desire to disrespect anyone .... request withdrawn ... — Ched :  ?  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? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm really curious to know the backstory for why the primary author wants Amazing Grace excluded from TFA. -- tariqabjotu 11:32, 14 August 2012 (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.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't look up who the editor was, but wouldn't amazing grace provide the best healing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Moni3? ... sigh. Yes, I'm familiar with her. — Ched :  ?  12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black. Raul654 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get that. (I got Hammer. Nail. Door.) - I am dealing with Franz Kafka, 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? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
He's saying I'm just as bad as Moni. Here is the relevant article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep digging ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't watch it while TFA, let oehters. Then do a before and after diff and ditch the bad, keep the good--makes TFA life simple. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any editor owns an article, the subject of which "Amazing Grace" belongs to the world, and no such editor, whether "main" editor or no, should be able to veto it's appearance on the main page. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Text not updating in this month's queue?

Regarding the article scheduled for 20 August: I saw the blurb in the page Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/August_2012, and I made a few improvements (I was the nominator at FAC). The improvements are visible in the single-day page Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/August_20,_2012, but the changes are not showing up in the month-queue page Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/August_2012. I'm suspect that this is normal, and there is just some sort of template issue happing; I just want to make sure I made the changes properly. --Noleander (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It shows up as you said when I looked. It's all transclusions, no doubt it takes a bit to update. The technical folk no doubt can fill your ears with the exact reasons, but I wouldnt' sweat it. Incidentally, the sun rose this morning. At least at this longitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It is working now. The delay was unexpected: I don't recall seeing that happen before with transclusions - there must be some data cache somewhere that only gets updated periodically. --Noleander (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TFA Stanley Holloway

The above article is due to appear as TFA tomorrow and I was wondering if it will be protected. The last article I had on TFA was Dan Leno on 21 June and that was protected. I notice today's isn't protected and has had numerous attacks of vandalism. Will this be protected per default or do I have to request it? -- CassiantoTalk 17:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The TFA is unprotected as a policy, the better for the world to edit, generally badly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, best I roll my sleeves up and batten down the hatches! Many thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A fair amount of people watch the TFA and will often deal with vandalism. The main problem is poor editing, unsourced stuff, or just what they thought they learned in school but misremember. Just keep wading through it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
By a curious coincidence I was just listening to a Stanley Holloway tape I made years ago, with my favourite "Brahn Boots" on it. I've added the article to my watchlist anyway, so you won't be all on your lonesome tomorrow. I can't remember now which TFA it was, but I was once blocked for violating 3RR on an article I'd written, so you need to be just a little bit careful about that, although there's customarily some leeway made for the article's main authors. Except in my case of course. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I learnt with Leno not to get too involved with reverting bad edits on the day, instead correcting them the following day. TFA is a bitter sweet experience for me I'm afraid, but I will do my best even though the article is even more vulnerable due to it's loss. Your help would be much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not to say that the article can't be protected though – I've watchlisted it and will protect if it gets bad. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date requests

I like the collaborative discussion of requests and suggest to install 3 more positions for nonspecific dates, for better planning ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, suggest also expanding the request period to 60 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
yes, especially if main page articles want to celebrate specific topics on specific dates - like running the Olympics article on the first day of the Olympics. Would your suggestion take care of that? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be taken care of already if only someone had noticed in time and proposed it here. There are now 10 slots possible for dates, but currently only 2 for no specific date. I can imagine 5 or even 10, to build a selection waiting to appear, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable and a good way to build up a stock of blurbs for quick insertion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Mine or Gerda's? I would also suggest lifting the restrictions on five points or more, with 12-15 slots we don't really need it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
gosh that was quick! yeah, I'd like to hear from Dabomb or Raul, but I think having extra nonspecific slots would be helpful in the mechanics on this page. Has anyone used any of the emergency standby ones since we put them up....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
None have been used.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


No, we're not expanding the period to 60 days. There's no reason for people to be requesting dates that far in the future. (I think the most there's ever been in the queue at once is about 21 days)

I'd be fine with increasing the number of non-specific slots if we consistently used the ones we have. So far, that's not even close to true. It's common for us to go weeks without a single non-specific nom. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful for specific requests though. Over at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/December 2012 we have some slots filled up as far as December 24, 2012. We only have to schedule one a week, of course, but I would have thought that having to manage seven a week, it would make it easier if you had the option of planning some slots further ahead. --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The box on the right is the place for that. Most non-specific nominations pass through pretty quickly, but if the sudden recent upsurge in interest here keeps up, increasing the non-specific slots a bit might be good. I believe the rules were more relaxed some years ago, re timing & generally, but it was found not to work very well. If you have too many nominations active the whole page clogs up & festers. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think 3 more requests would make it too many. I am thinking of a nomination, waiting for a slot to be open. Or may I just add one? - Planning dates well in advance ("box on the right") should help to see days of conflict sooner. I see advantages also in an early request here, to enable a broad discussion. I would like to see an information ("will appear") going in advance not only to the main author(s) but also to the related project, to make the presentation as good as can be, - project opera would have improved the blurb for Kathleen Ferrier (22 April), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

why is the request for Amazing Grace being ignored?

It is a beautiful song that belongs to the world and belongs on the main page? Eleven people have requested that it be on the main page. What is stopping it from appearing? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Deferring to any one person, even if they are the main editor, is enabling WP:OWN. To do so when they are no longer active is simply baffling.PumpkinSky talk 01:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Especially when the stated reason was that she didn't have time to watch it while on main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
wiki-politics. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
When it's been featured ten thousand years, prose shining like the sun, it will have no less days as featured article, then when it first begun. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like Keilana|Parlez ici 03:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, but we deserve an explanation. I'm late to the party, and I don't exactly want a seat, but the tenor of some of the discussions (and comments from Raul) over the past month is unsettling, albeit not shocking. -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to our life.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Tariq, I agree, I'd never had an issue with any part of the FA process, or any of the people in it, but this whole incident has been discouraging to say the least. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew ... I don't know if you remember me or not - but I remember you helping me get a friend's article to GA - so as much as I really wanted to run off and hide on this issue .. I did want to respond to you on this topic. I honestly don't have an answer here. I saw the article in a list of "never been on the front page", and thought it was such a beautiful thought. Somehow it's become a topic that's too hot to handle. I honestly don't understand. People aren't supposed to "OWN" anything on Wikipedia .. and while we say that - it seems that in reality, it's a misnomer .. well ... considering all things - in truth - it's an outright LIE. Personally I've given up caring a whole hell of a lot about much here. I'd /like/ to be part of a collective group who works together .. I /want/ to contribute in a collaborative manner - but I see the way people try to "WP:OWN" things .. and it just puts me off. They try to "OWN" articles. They try to "OWN" projects. They try to "OWN" some imagined position of power ... I don't know buddy. I thought putting that article out there for the front page was a good idea ... apparently it wasn't .. my bad. — Ched :  ?  05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to manage to avoid your central point to respond to "I'd /like/ to be part of a collective group who works together .. I /want/ to contribute in a collaborative manner" ... WP:OMT might be the place for you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, you'll recall my getting bitten by OWNy attitudes there. It's common all across the project. *The* project. Wikipedia. I have had better luck with Parsecboy and the Imperial German Navy of late. Progress is being made (and heels keep getting dug-in). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, but I'm assuming Ched isn't going to walk in and unilaterally change reference styles. ;-) You were an isolated instance. If Ched would like to work in a collegial project, say as a writer or copyeditor, OMT is the place to be. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
We're supposed to be BOLD. It's the only way to get anything done around here. And the wonderful thing about my approach to references is that it has really caught on with a lot of serious editors. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Which I agree with, but there's also revert and discuss cycles. You can't expect your referencing style to catch on with everyone! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
'tis a pity that some are stuck on the methods they learned years ago. Weekly baths, iceboxes, 640×480 video, named refs... There are new and better things, and ever-more coming. Such things, like battleships, are swept away by change, and end up in museums, or as museums. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm simply not a fan of the {{sfn}} template or lower-alpha because it doesn't allow for Chicago styling and doesn't look right in-text, respectively. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I just don't like the sfn style because it involves unnecessary typing, but I do try to respect existing cite styles when I overhaul an article. Petropavlovsk class battleship retained its sfn cite format despite temptations to rip it all out (I was most displeased when I had to add useless and unnecessary years of publication to all the cites to make one cite with three authors display properly). Conduct yourself similarly and we'll get along just fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (the well-aged dinosaur)
That was Buggie taking that to {sfn}, and later I fixed it up. And it needs fixing, again. None of those are working properly; 25 out of 30 footnotes are broken. You really should install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. And the years are optional. I already tried to teach you that, before. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
👍 fixed. Teh years can be omitted, and were before you busted all the links by adding them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, forgive me by trying to follow the template documentation which says to list multiple authors separated by a pipe between each author. That didn't require years until I got to three authors which would not display properly without a year. So I added it to all of them for consistency's sake. Didn't notice any busted links because that's not something that I ever use or test.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also see the doc for {{sfnRef}} which is used in there for finer control of the footnote text. That's what allows omitting the years. It allows exact control over the footnote text for whatever special circumstances. When doing this for works with multiple authors, you don't use the pipes in the {sfn}, you use a copy of what was specified in the {sfnRef}. I've tidied that article up further: [1] && [2]. The footnotes notes now all link properly to the sources, all of which are together in that section. This clears the citation clutter out of the prose leaving only short invocations inline, which makes the wiki-text much easier to read and edit. It also makes the citations easier to read and edit as a block, for better maintenance of them. The links from the footnotes to the sources are checked by Ucucha's script and by doing this, we increase verifiability considerably. I find footnotes referring to omitted sources all the time this way (not the case with this article, however). I expect this would now easily pass GA and is certainly within sight of FA. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that; I'll try to remember that if I ever need to work with sfn again. Something that I hope to avoid, but you can never tell. You've caught me forgetting about an omitted source once or twice, but it is something that sfn does well. I'm glad that you like the article, fixing the Navweps.com refs was something that I probably would have done before the ACR, but I thank you for it. One thing though, please don't change the nice compact format for the refs that I prefer to the vertical, too-full-of-whitespace, format that you love. It's invisible to the reader and means that I can't read the entire bibliography without scrolling which annoys me considerably. I respected the format of the existing books, but please respect that of the ones that I add. Consistency that's invisible to the reader is just a waste of your time, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone pinged Dabomb87? It might be worth it to kindly ask before starting a lengthy thread. --Rschen7754 07:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually ... as he's in the position of being a big part of this .. I honestly thought that this page would be on his watchlist .. but I did ping him as you requested. — Ched :  ?  08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
And I'm sorry for being a smart-ass here - but ummmm ... actually it would really be proper and prudent to hear from Raul here. "the blind" might benefit from a bit of guidance on this matter. — Ched :  ?  08:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Be discriminating in where you look for that. IJS. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Raul has only edited once in the last 6 days. PumpkinSky talk 10:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So does that mean [/wikibreak] or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I believe Raul said something about being busy at work, and he clearly doesn't edit as much as he used to, and he's quite comfortable not saying anything when he doesn't feel like it, so we might be waiting a long time for his input. Let's keep going. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning to do some scheduling tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be good if you assigned 31 Aug and 1 Sep today, aiming at planning a week in advance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. The wiki world does not revolve around one person. It does not stop if one person is not around for whatever reason.PumpkinSky talk 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I didn't want to open up a section too soon and risk turning a dying Arbcom case request into a live one ... but it looks like we're safe now. We don't need to do this here, but I'd sure prefer this to WT:FAC, to prevent spillover. If or when this gets back to Arbcom again, I hope that we have already negotiated, compromised, discussed, or whatever until everyone at least knows that they've gotten their points across, even though we won't all agree (which is fine, because we've got different goals and we're thinking of different Wikipedians and different problems ... and since all WPians deserve access to Featured Content processes, it's a good thing that a lot of views are represented here). Thoughts? Where do we stand? - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit of an outsider here, having never had an article to FA and having only participated deeply in a couple of nominations, but I hope you will bear with me while I make a few observations about ongoing problems.
  1. Articles need to be scheduled for the main page at least a week in advance. Interested authors need to be notified at least a week in advance. This problem is what led to the recent blow-up. Currently there's a week of stuff scheduled, which is great.
  2. UcuchaBot is down and Gerda has been manually maintaining Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and will be manually notifying editors in advance of main page appearances.
  3. When people have problems with the TFAR of TFA processes, there needs to be a central place for them to post their beefs, such as this page or at talk:TFA. People with problems have been posting at Wehwalt's page or complaining to Malleus, etc (that's how I got involved; I watch both of their user talk pages). If editors know there's a centralised place for posting matters requiring immediate attention, tempers won't get so high.
  4. Right here on this talk page we see an example of Raul unilaterally deciding that there will only be two slots for non-specific dates. In effect shutting off community discussion on the matter. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.
  5. In a related matter, the two non-specific date slots are currently occupied. One of the slots is taken by Amazing Grace, which has received unanimous support. Even so, it's been sitting there for ten days without being scheduled for a main page appearance. I suspect the reason for this is because Moni3, the primary author of the article, had specified a preference for it to never appear on the main page. Moni3 is now retired. So a decision on whether or not the article gets a main page appearance has not yet been taken, as the decision is bound to anger up a lot of people. Meanwhile Gerda had expressed an interest in nominating another article for non-specific date, but could not do so because both slots are full. So we either need more slots, or we need a decision be made about Amazing Grace. -- Dianna (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am aware of this but feel I should let other people begin the discussion as I've had a fair amount to say on this and related topics over the past nine months. I will monitor and comment if I feel the spirit move me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I will just say (because I don't really see where this is supposed to be going) that without detailed checking it looks to me as if Gerda may well be able to bounce out one or both of the current non-specific requests under the rules. Note that such bounced-out articles may in fact be selected after all (an aspect of the process here that many seem to be unaware of or forget), and that selection for TFA or being bounced out are the two usual ways of resolving a non-specific request, rather than a "decision" to just remove an article. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't really care what happens here - I requested once; since that time I haven't kept the page on watch. That said, I think if people have opinions in terms of anniversaries, or notification limits, it should be brought here to be discussed so if issues exists they can be worked out before being bounced to various boards and committees. Also, kudos to Dank for getting some kind of discussion going and I'd suggest maybe it be linked to the FAC talk page. Re - Amazing Grace, prob might not be a bad idea to give Moni the courtesy of a ping to see whether she has an opinion. She might; she might not. We'll never know without trying. If I had a say, I'd suggest getting rid of TfA completely. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do you (TK88) think you don't have a say? Nobody Ent 23:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • TFA should be scheduled out at least 30 days in advance. If the TFA director or their delegate fails to do so, any other editor should be able to schedule the TFA.
  • The request limits should be removed.
  • While original and/or "primary" authors should be notified of possible TFA as a courtesy, they have no greater say in scheduling or content of a FA than any other editor: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.Nobody Ent 23:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I like NE's idea of any person (let's exclude the nominator) being able to schedule within seven days.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well it might work as a pistol to the head but otherwise would lead to a rash of special interest placings or rows - is that scheduling capable of being reversed then? Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
NE's points here are brilliant. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think totally removing the limits on nominations is a good idea, as in the past the list got so long as to be no more useful than a list of the articles that had never appeared on the main page. The list had expanded to over 150 requests when Raul cut the page on Sept 13, 2007. But two slots for non-specific dates seems artificially small, especially if long-range planning is the goal. For example, we've had a lot of military stuff lately, and coordinating the queue further in advance could help give more balance to the selections. Having more non-specific date requests would make that task easier. -- Dianna (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Jeez, I'd only heard rumours of the good old days! Scheduling much longer ahead only works if people think of anniversaries well in time, which many don't - viz Olympic Games, which I only nominated after seeing a mention on this page the day after the Games started. The situation at the moment is unusual and artificial, & should be resolved by bouncing out the non-specifics as the rules allow. You can be sure Raul knows Amazing Grace is there, & whatever the rights or wrongs, will choose it if he wants to. People seem to think the process here goes just by counting but, as at FAC, it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You can be sure Raul knows Amazing Grace is there, & whatever the rights or wrongs, will choose it if he wants to. Seeing someone say that makes my blood boil. Why is this concept acceptable? You mean a dozen people can support an article being placed on the Main Page, but Raul has the right to ignore these requests without explanation simply because he wants to? This is not the Wikipedia way. If Raul has a reason for ignoring the request, he should say it. And if the community disagrees with him, the article should be scheduled anyway. He does not have the authority to ignore consensus, regardless of his (un)official title. -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
👍 *well said* Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
See the recent Rfc - Wehwalt will give you the link. The whole process of selecting balanced TFAs over the medium term is imo too complicated & time-wasting to be be usefully opened up for permanent discussion, and this page is a sensible measure to allow some general input but avoid endless rows, like the one you seem to want to have. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"Too complicated"? Get serious. A 7th grader could do it.PumpkinSky talk 10:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Possibly, but not if they have 15 people mostly only interested in one particular article at a time yammering in their ear the whole time, and having to have explain to each the rationale for their choices to keep a balanced programme over a period of a few months, with very uneven supplies of articles to choose from. 7th graders are really shit at dealing with that sort of situation. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It's been Dabomb87 scheduling TFAs lately, and my guess is that since he came back from an extended wikibreak, he might not be aware of the Amazing Grace request. --Rschen7754 07:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Johnbod, "scheduled a month ahead" would not mean "carved in stone". Things could be changed if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Johnbod, you are not actually dealing with a group of 7th-graders. You are dealing with a group of some of the best, smartest wikipedians on the site: lawyers, masters students, and the like. @ Rschen7754, if Dabomb87 is not aware of the Amazing Grace request, it means there's in effect no one minding the store, because Raul seldom edits any more. -- Dianna (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what makes it worse; you get a much higher class of yammering. It was PumpkinSky's term, not mine. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I not say anyone here was a 7th grader, I said the task was so easy a 7th grader could do it, that's a huge difference--and I stand by that, it's easy and not that time consuming. We should not be having all this trouble scheduling TFAs. PumpkinSky talk 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

All the responses in this section and the next shed some light at least on what the conflicts are, thanks. Some emails and on-wiki discussion are suggesting that some people prefer to avoid TFA these days ... and maybe even FAC and A-class reviews ... because they don't want to argue with people about article content on TFA day. I've looked through the history of WP:TFAR (since it isn't archived) going back once a week for 3 months. I can only speak concerning prose, myself, and I haven't noticed any prose requests that seem unusual, but I do see disagreements there and on this page on other matters that I don't remember seeing at FAC. Are there any content matters that we're supposed to be arguing about here but not at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding: ideally content should be handled in the FA nomination process, this list is supposed to handle scheduling. But: it happens that scheduled articles do not meet today's quality standards, especially "older" ones. The sooner this is noticed and the longer the phase before appearing, the more likely it is that the quality can be improved. - In the past, it happened that an editor was notified 59 minutes before the article appeared, at a time when he was sleeping, - nothing could be improved in such a case. At present, articles are scheduled until 8 September, all contributors received a notice, some users concerned about quality step in for users who left, - the process looks fine. I also like the expanded request slots here and more discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Count me amongst those who would, if they could, opt out of TFA. It's not arguments about content, they're just part and parcel of normal editing, it's the endless vandalism and repeated niggling about trivia on TFA day that's wearing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You will not see it on these pages, Dank; the difficulties occur on the article talk page, mostly. It can get reasonably ugly. But withholding articles from TFA sends the wrong message, too. I'm not certain what can be done, other than protecting articles on main page day, which honestly I would.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I've made successful requests for a few articles I've worked on to be TFA, mainly for what I saw as appropriate anniversaries. I've also had articles I've worked on scheduled without my request, which was fine. Because they're all fairly specialised in terms of subject matter, they never attracted much argument over content, just the usual vandalism or style changes of questionable merit, like any TFA. For the reasons Malleus has stated, though, it'd take a pretty special anniversary for me to go to the trouble of making another TFA request, and I tend to agree with Wehwalt that TFAs deserve a higher level of protection than they get -- but then if I had my way, users would require an ID before they edited, so what do I know? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, entirely. But it would require a policy change with a broad consensus, not just with us folks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it would. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The only thing it would require is that most uncommon of things, common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
@Mal especially -- try ignoring TFA day all together. Plenty of people watch out for vandalism and such. Just do a before and after diff, keep the good, ditch the bad. PumpkinSky talk 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to encourage Br'er and Raul (either or both) to make any proposal and counterproposal you can live with ... now that you've seen the commentary from the ANI request and the Arbcom case request, you both have more information than you did before. If either of you makes an offer that affords some measure of respect to the other, that makes it likely that you'll both be able to operate as usual while staying out of each other's hair (hare?), and that will stop the recurring conflict at WT:TFAR from ... recurring, I think it's likely you could get support for your proposal or counterproposal. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • (this may be off topic) but is it anyone's job to reveiw the FA proposed for TFA right before it runs (or at any time)? Recently Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders ran on the main page full of copy edit tags that a copy editor had placed there in the days before (see Earth calling), and I don't believe the main writer Noleander was notified that it was going to run on the main page. He wasn't around when it ran and (I believe) the article was reverted when it had been on the main page several hours, only after I brought it to Mark Arsten's attention. Is reviewing the article before main page appearance part of anyone's responsibilities? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That goes back to the issue of notice. It would definitely be good if the main writers were given more notice. People have been suggesting seven days, but that doesn't really seem long enough, because we can't expect editors to drop everything. Thirty days would be ideal, except for unanticipated anniversaries. It would be good to hear from Raul about what kind of scheduling difficulties that might cause. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Seven day's notice is plenty, since all that is truly important at that point is to notify the lead contributors. Raul once scheduled one of my articles with two days notice. I knew it wasn't up to snuff anymore, so asked him to postpone it's appearance by a couple days. He did so easily. As long as an editor knows it is coming, they can assess whether the article is in a proper state fairly quickly, and report back how much additional time, if any, they need to prepare it for the main page. If that means a couple days, fine. If that means a month, fine. Except for anniversaries, TFA dates are rarely set in stone.Resolute 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Resolute. If we make it a month, we'll be constantly adjusting things as people come in with fresh promotions which they worked to have available for an anniversary, say, or people who are just unaware of the long schedule-ahead. I would say a week to ten days. I like the suggestion that someone made, that if it gets under a week, that someone should make a tentative selection and place it on the TFA page for that day, after all, Raul or Dabomb can always change it if they don't like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Michigan State University

THis is scheduled for Aug 29. It is in no shape for the main page, dead links, etc. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got it down to one dead link using the Wayback Machine, and I've done some clean-up on the tables. Someone could go and write some alt-text for the photographs. -- Dianna (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Got to the main page with a dead link. Is this "our best work"? PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh and South Side, Chicago had eleven dead links when it hit the main page (and still has a bunch of maintenance tags. Pls look at the article rather than just read the blurb. PumpkinSky talk 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Note my comment above: is it anyone's job to reveiw the FA proposed for TFA right before it runs (or at any time)? Recently Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders ran on the main page full of copy edit tags ... (and in this case the main editor hadn't been notified.) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree, it should be someone's job if it isn't. At a minimum, the person slotting it into a TFA slot should at a minimum eyeball it for obvious errors. PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-specific date slots

I would like to re-open the discussion of increasing the number of slots for non-specific date requests. Should there be more slots? If so, how many, do you think? -- Dianna (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

5 non specific slots an 10 specific slots. PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
5 && 10 would be reasonable, even twice that would be. teh '2' is absurd. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggest to try 5 no-date, 10 date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll concur. That will make things easier on the selectors. They'll be more likely to have article blurbs readily at hand, vetted by the community, and there will be fewer surprises for the writers. This will make the point system of little moment except in the case of direct conflict for a date, and we've been able to massage that in the past by getting a nominator to move by one day. Common sense proposal, I'd say.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I also vote for the 5 & 10 proposal for all the reasons stated by Wehwalt.--Chimino (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Support as minimum. Nobody Ent 14:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think 5 and 10 is worth a shot. If chaos ensues, we can go back, per a variation of WP:BRD. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Should there be an additional mechanism (besides the current point system) for removing articles from the list if they don't get selected? Say, pull them after two or three weeks if they haven't yet been selected the main page? -- Dianna (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is one, under the rules for the non-specific date slot. It says that if the selectors pick seven days and don't pick this, it can be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The way it's worded leaves the onus on editors to remove the suggestions, but only when they have a suggestion to replace it with. I was thinking they should be removed after a while even if no other suggestions are being proposed, to keep the list fresh and up-to-date. -- Dianna (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to rather look at the discussion. An article that gets 10 supports but isn't picked should wait longer, whereas a suggestion that doesn't receive 3 supports might be dropped - for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree, otherwise Amazing Grace might have been bounced. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The current procedures are designed to be self-flushing in a rather Darwinist way; generally this has worked very well & avoided rows. That's one of the reasons I'm cautious about increasing the number of non-specifics, as usually it's not necessary, bearing in mind that many that get bounced out are selected anyway, and the more slots there are the greater the possibility of stagnation. For most of this year I think there has been one of the 2 slots free anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
My thought is to eliminate the Darwinism.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
But it's traditional: wp:Wiki, Red in Tooth and Claw ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the battles would come if the current mechanism is removed, and someone has to decide to remove lingering items (like the one we have now). I've never seen anyone kick up a fuss because their article got bounced that I can remember, because you can't really argue with someone preferring their nomination to yours. And as I keep saying, bounced items very often get chosen anyway if they were without problems. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with you, Johnbod. Forcing editors to bounce an article encourages people to behave aggressively. The more mild-mannered editors will not want to make a fuss, and if the queue is full, they will not bounce. I suppose that's what you mean by Darwinian behaviour. However, selecting for the trait of aggression in our editors does not help us to build a better wiki or help us solve the editor retention problem. Au contraire. -- Dianna (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Many of the recently arrived editors here need no forcing to act aggresively, and as I've said, the proposed changes seem almost designed to cause the sort of arguments that the current system has generally been very successful in avoiding. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What I'm trying to do is promote an ambient culture that does not require people to be cut-throat about their editing. My intention is to demonstrate correct and civilised behaviour to all users old and new alike. Did you ever read The Tipping Point? In New York City they saw huge drops in the crime rate by doing simple things like cleaning up the graffiti on the subway cars. If we make aggressive behaviour situationally unacceptable, we can improve the working environment on this wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I support the proposal to increase the quantity of non-specific slots to five. It seems to have some good benefits, with little downside. --Noleander (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)s th

Me too. 5ive nonspec slots is fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Is already  Done. Now go whack the troll on the bottom of my talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's go with 10 specific slots too. PumpkinSky talk 15:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
We already have ten, I believe? That was an earlier discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there's five non-specific and ten specific slots available right now. If people start rioting in the streets or acting like 7th graders, it can always be re-thought. Let's try this set-up for a while and see if it works. -- Dianna (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, what's confusing is the unused non-specifics are in there but blank and the unused specifics aren't in there at all. Let's add them.PumpkinSky talk 18:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling overdue

To keep within the one week notice people are asking for, scheduling is overdue. PumpkinSky talk 11:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First: I haven't been on wiki much due to real life work, so it's likely I've missed a lot. Second: I'm hardly a TFA regular, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Third: I did notice the other day some talk page notices regarding TFA where a bot (urchabot - although I know that's not the correct spelling) was posting notices about scheduling after a page had come and gone. Perhaps if you dropped by the bot owner's page and checked with him. Beyond that - Dabomb is the only other active person I'd know to contact. Raul hasn't posted since Aug. 25, but I don't know if he's been watching or not. Sorry I can't be any more help here. — ChedZILLA 13:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The bot is back to working. I understand that it - being just a bot - did some things "too late" but those were corrected, I suggest to think about those announcements, reflecting that that most writers were actively engaged in a discussion here, instead of being surprised by some mercy granted to them unexpectedly. A link to the blurb would be practical, instead of a copy of the wording. If the date was requested, it doesn't make sense to be informed how to change it. When I replaced the bot function, I simply wrote: "coming soon", with a link, adding something about improvements to blurb and article where that seemed a good idea. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The schedule is overdue and the queue of overfull; {{sofixit}}, it's a wiki. People need the time to suss out any issues. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Dabomb has scheduled up to 22 September. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

…and it's seriously overdue, again. Fair warning… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment -- Graphic, disturbing images on the main page

I have created a Request for Comment on the question of whether or not very graphic, disturbing images should be included on the main page of Wikipedia. It's at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 99#RfC: Graphic, disturbing images on the main page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion there (and not here, so that the discussion is centralized in one place). — Mudwater (Talk) 12:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Promoting articles with tags

Will the promoters PLEASE ensure there are no maintenance tags on articles before they become TFA? sigh, just yesterday we had another. PumpkinSky talk 01:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Check the page history, both those citation needed tags were added after Dabomb87 scheduled the article: [3]. Same with the "deadlink" tags, although I don't know if the links were in fact dead but untagged at the time of scheduling. BencherliteTalk 09:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't worry me - a few tags. I've always been of the view that I don't mind showing the world that we're a work in progress. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Depends on how serious the tags are. If minor, the day on the Main page could actually be the day most people see it, including someone who can fix it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Running plagiarised material on the main page would be more of a problem in my view than running a non-BLP article with a couple of "fact" tags on it, for example. BencherliteTalk 11:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected on this one instance, but I have to respectfully disagree, having tags on articles on the main page is not good. This has in fact happened more than once this year, TFAs hitting the MP with tags already in place. PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If we are making an aggressive point of not allowing DYK or OTD entries with tags, then it doesn't make sense to be less picky for TFA. On the other hand, I'd be happy if we distinguished between {{fact}} and the more prominent "general problem" boxes. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"If we are making an aggressive point of not allowing DYK or OTD entries with tags, then it doesn't make sense to be less picky for TFA." Especially since Today's featured article is an example of wikipedia's best work and is featured. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Precisely, per Andrew and Mat.PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not too concerned about dead link tags. I've cleaned up the dead links in a few TFA candidates, and quite often the dead links are not dead at all; the site just went down for maintenance at one point, and the bot that added the tags did not remove them. There have been some rare cases where another editor cannot access the page, but I can. In most cases, the pages have merely been moved. The dead link ref is the key to repairing the reference, so never replace a dead link with a fact tag! Normally, the articles can be polished for display easily enough, if there is sufficient warning that the article appearing on the front page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a dead link as a ref is still perfectly fine. If fact X is cited to a print source you can't readily check without a little effort, that's not questioned often, but if it's sourced to a website that it'd take five minutes to check with the wayback machine, suddenly it's a maintenance issue? Available links are preferable but a link being dead, provided the full citation is present, isn't something that should be considered more than the most trifling of issues. GRAPPLE X 22:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, it's so easy to fix that it should be fixed before it goes to the MP. We don't promote articles from FAC to FA with dead links, why should we do it to the MP when we're claiming those as "wiki's best"? PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, perhaps people should use the link-checking tool, which is located on WP:TFAR (albeit in small font) to check for deadlinks, before they support? PumpkinSky, you even nominated Appaloosa with three dead links, and MathewTownsend, you supported the nomination; that's slightly ironic in the light of the comments both of you have made here, is it not?! It was only after multiple supports that the deadlinks issue was pointed out! BencherliteTalk 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Should blurb formatting be described as "suggested formatting" or not?

Following some nominations where blurbs were being put forward with formats that differed from those set out in the instructions - two paragraphs, extra bolded words, far too many characters – I removed the word "suggested" from the heading "suggested formatting" with the edit summary change "suggested formatting" to "formatting" - putting forward blurbs in formats that depart from the model that Raul/Dabomb will use on the main page just creates extra work for them for no gain whatsoever, which I hope is self-explanatory.

This edit has been undone with the summary restore long-standing "suggested", no adding Rulz by fiat, especially when it's an issue you've been involved in.

What do others think? BencherliteTalk 22:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That whole page is essentially deprecated and needs a massive copyediting. And not by OWNers, but by collaboration an eye towards the future. The main page itself is up for redesign, and the mock-up here are not even properly modelling the extant page. It's all years-old design that needs a serious kick in the head. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing I've wondered about. I hate the solid block of text format. Who made that a rule and why? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Raul in July 2009, as far as I can tell - it may have been mentioned earlier by him or someone else, but that request prompted this change to the instructions page. BencherliteTalk 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The formatting should match what will be used, based on the current format for the Main Page. Unless/until the Main Page format is actually changed, this is how it's done. Therefore, I support Bencherlite's change and suggest it be restored. Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not in sync with how the main page is built, anyway. It's a wiki; there are no firm Rulz. The main page is a six year old design that sucks. It's way past time to do better. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Presumably Der Großherzog Raul DCLIV. We can do better formatting, such as I've “suggested”. WMF is redesigning the whole site and lots is going to follow from that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
i'm wondering if there's reasons for the rules? What's the reasons for the block of text, no paragraphs etc.? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The “no paragraphs” is completely arbitrary. Mostly it would be about seeking compactness. The main page is fluid; things move a lot based on window size, various font metrics in prefs, broswers and OS. The current design will always have white space gaps for a fair number of users. The img top-left is actually non-MOS, which says to not use images at the beginning of sections (which te mp modules effectively are;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not a vote, it's a discussion. And WP:is not a bureaucracy; don't throw out the option of a sprawling RfC for minor issues. That's about seeking to imped progress by creating hurdles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we should consider other alternatives. For example, the blurb usually winds up with prose that isn't as good as the lede, because we pick and choose sentences from the lede to include in the blurb. Sometimes, there are gaps in continuity. It doesn't show as our best work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
agree, agree! Many times I've been put off by the blurb. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This is why we need to be more than a week ahead of things; *two* weeks. Time to buff up the blurbs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not interested in rigid rules here, this or that kind, but would like to see open collaborative discussion to arrive at the best possible blurb. The more in advance suggestions come, and the more people help, the better. I was asked to comment, otherwise I would ignore talk about rules ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Ed. The appearance of the TFA is well within our jurisdiction here, that space on the main page. No RfC was required for the implementation of the rule a few years ago, we need none now. It would be courteous to drop a note at Talk:Main Page when we get down to cases and start considering ideas, though. It's been pointed out that blurbs can be off-putting, if people have ideas, let's look at them. Remember, this is a wiki, we are not chiseling stone tablets here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree that there is no need for a RFC, the original rule was instituted, as far as I can tell, by one person by fiat. The proposed blurbs need to be "proposed" or "suggested" and to be reviewed by both the TFA community and, if possible, the lead editors of the article to be sure they are, in fact, as good as the lede from which they were derived; copyediting by someone who did no work on the article can really alter nuance and use of terms of art. And I agree the one-paragraph rule often results in a boring blob of text that at its worst jumps from one random topic to another. Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The point that many people seem to be missing is that in 2004 and 2012, the community gave Raul the authority to run the featured articles process. And as I keep telling people, if you disagree with rules Raul put in place, you need to start a RFC to have him removed. --Rschen7754 18:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You've already said that, but that is not the only option. He has removed himself, anyway, by long-term disengagement; an effective abdication by delegation. Wikis don't have firm Rulz and talking about change is quite the norm. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we need points any more?

The page is now running at 5 non-specific date slots and 10 specific date slots. As such, there is now less need for competition between articles in terms of jostling for position on the nomination page, and the point score is much less relevant than it used to be. In the past, you needed to know the points accurately because points determined whether articles would be bumped off before selection. Now there are many more slots, that's not an issue. I'm not sure the points calculation still has a use. If an article is an old FA, on an important topic that TFA hasn't run for a while, why not just put that in the nomination, and explain why the date is a good one (if appropriate)? If people like the article and the reasons for nominating, they can support it; if not, they can ignore or oppose it, or express a preference for a competing article or for the article to run on another date. The instructions would get much simpler, and people wouldn't need to spend time working out whether a particular article is "underrepresented" or so similar to a recent FA that it gets a points penalty or trying to find a date relevance point. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 09:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar thoughts: I think the point math can be replaced by discussions among reasonable people who want to improve the quality of articles and are interested in showing a variety of topics on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would not object to this. Also, the 5 non-specific slots are usually full. We should increase to 10, just like specific. PumpkinSky talk 10:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would support that also. 10 non-specific slots should provide enough variety of topics to easily schedule a week in advance, which I think is the minimum - two weeks seem better to really bring articles in shape, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems a little premature to discuss increasing the number of non-specific slots again, less than a month after the last discussion (where you were both happy with 5 slots). There's been no real chance to see how things are going. After all, it's only been five days since the fifth slot was filled for the first time, so it's a bit too soon to be able to say "the 5 non-specific slots are usually full"... Anyway, that's a different discussion to this one, so it might be better to start your own proposal rather than get it mixed up here. BencherliteTalk 10:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. It's far easier to find a non-spef candidate than a specific one. I alone have enough non-spef on my list to keep that filled for a couple months, plus there's what other people what to nom in the non-specific slots.PumpkinSky talk 16:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I too have a non-specific nomination waiting in the wings, so would appreciate more slots. -- Dianna (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
We would not need more slots, of course, if scheduling would clear them. If nothing happens until tomorrow I will be bold and schedule the stork, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
To answer Bencherlite's question, I have some thoughts about this in terms of the diffusion and the point system, but want to think it through a bit more. I've only made a single request here but found I had no points; the article seemed important to run and I'd written it for a specific anniversary; but I've been a bit befuddled about how the points work (and btw I think that Bencherlite helped that time by creating a version in Welsh, so a belated thanks for that). Anyway, I'm thinking that some slicing and dicing is in order to keep from getting too many requests in the same areas and maybe points can be used in that regard, but not sure how to go about doing it. All I know is that currently we have, I think, six requests for US topics, three requests for music, three to do with a fairly close geographical area in the US (that's quite frankly fairly unpopulated), and so on. So I think we need to look at better diffusion and if we do keep points that might be the way to go. But no specific proposal to put forward after this lengthy post. The points are worth discussing though. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you consider that the supply of TFAs ready is limited? It has many more battleships and hurricanes than biographies of African scientists and Chinese cities, - we can only distribute what we have, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to get at I think. That's why I think maybe the point system could be reworked in terms of diffusion, but am tired and just in from work and still working out in my mind how we could do something like that or if it's even feasible. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Limited the supply may be, but only up to a point - 1,317 articles to choose from, or over 3.5 years' worth (assuming all are fit for the main page) leaving aside the ones being promoted each week at FAC (more than are demoted at FAR). I think Truthkeeper88 hits the nail on the head - whatever system there is needs to make sure that the TFA sequence shows the range, depth and quality of the FAs. Points seem a rather crude metric, particularly when there are so many slots that points don't act as a constraint on nominations. If people take an overview of the nominations and say "yes to this but no to that because they're too similar in theme" then whoever is selecting the articles can take into account views and suggestions and judge the consensus, such that it is, that emerges from the discussion as part of looking to the bigger picture. I'm glad it's not me picking the articles, anyway! And yes I remember the absurdity of a system that in part depended on me writing a two-line stub in Welsh about a novel so that 20 rather than 19 other-language Wikipedias covered the topic to ensure that a nomination of Truthkeeper's gained the extra point needed to stop it being bumped off the page. Discussion should be about the merits of the nominations not about the technicalities of point-scoring. That's my point, as it were, in a nutshell. BencherliteTalk 22:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ensuring diversity is or was ensured by keeping the number of articles coming from here relatively limited, so that the pickers could also pick plenty from the full range available - though as pointed out this is a very skewed population. This is another aspect of the delicate ecology that will I hope survive the recent changes. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's the unspecified that are throwing it off - and I'm not clear what "unspecified" means. A week from now? A month? A year? If we look only at the specified we have two biographies (one male US baseball player; one female UK aristocrat); two to do with music (a French opera; an American musical); a horse; a river; an Antarctic expedition. I suppose of those the only one I'd question is the Antarctic expedition because let's be frank, there weren't many in the early 20th century, and most have been run with Ernest Shackleton going in March. So stripping out the non-specifics in fact seems to balance it a bit more. Don't know where that gets us on Bencherlite's original question re points. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This system has its issues, but the one it replaced was worse. I think getting rid of the points is worth considering.PumpkinSky talk 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there's now a problem here. Not enough thought is being given to the diversity of the pages being proposed. If it continues in this vein, then I think maybe it might be worth exploring whether to assign points based on some kind of weight in the categories of on this page. But some of the categories are extremely heavily populated whereas others, such as Mathematics for instance, very lightly populated. Ideally the thing to do (and I think this might be a big job and quite frankly not worth doing), is to slice and dice the categories even more: depopulate some of the heavy ones by reorganizing and dividing, and so on.
  • Furthermore, let's be honest about what's going on. We have a void because neither Raul nor Dabomb have been editing much. I've never interacted with either of those editors and couldn't care less about the egos involved, but on some level when we lose editors like that we lose institutional memory that's worth keeping. Has anyone tried to approach the Raul or Dabomb and ask what's going on with them (besides the obvious)? Has anyone tried asking Raul how he's been making these decisions, does he have a system? Is the system really broken or have there simply been a few hitches lately. Finally, I really hate seeing what happened yesterday with Pilgrim at Tinker Creek – I see posts demanding scheduling so that writers can clean up the pages and yet the writers aren't being notified and furthermore in that particular case have to undergo two days of nastiness and accusations. This is hypocrisy at it's worst. I think we can do better. I'm unwatching here now because I'm disappointed at some of the behavior I've seen. Sorry if I'm coming across as pedantic or whatever, but there you go. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to recognize that many possible TFAs aren't being nominated because the primary editor(s) have fallen away from Wiki, don't want the hassle of cleaning them up or simply don't care. We have the current distribution of noms, for good or bad, because their primary editors care enough to nominate them. If diversity is really an issue, and I'm not sure if it is or not, then let's go looking through the rest of the FAs for more diverse subjects and give them any needed TLC before the actual nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I've kinda done that at Wikipedia:QAI#TFAR_candidates. But now we're getting opposes because "Article A is in Locale A and was TFA three months ago and now Article B is at TFAR and it's 1000 miles from Locale A so it can't be TFA"....when the topics are totally different. PumpkinSky talk 23:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes "you" (!) are, and I suggest you stop whining about it every 5 minutes. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Truthkeeper88 has a point if the categories on this page are what is meant by "diversity".

  • Art, architecture and archaeology - 4 left that have not on been on the main page
  • Art, architecture and archeology biographies - 3 left
  • Biology - 62 left
  • Animals - 118 left
  • Biology biographies - 0 left
  • Business, economics and finance - 17 left (13 of them on coins)
  • Chemistry and mineralogy - 0 left
  • Computing - 0 left
  • Culture and society - 9 left
  • Education - 4 left
  • Engineering and technology - 0 left
  • Food and drink - 1 left (Lettuce)
  • Geography and places - about 60 or so left - (lost count)
  • Geology and geophysics - 0 left
  • Health and medicine - 1 left
  • History - 28 left
  • History biographies - 30 left
  • Language and linguistics - 0 left
  • Law - 6 left
  • Law biographies - 3 left

etc. Is this what is meant by diversity? Inquiring minds want to know. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. Just in case anyone is not clear, this is by no means the full list, totalling 1318 or something, and excludes the big categories which are mainly "popular culture" - we are in no danger of running out of tv shows, hurricanes or pop songs. It might be helpful to the pickers if more of these were nominated here. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. But I also think either to avoid or to underscore PumpkinSky's comment above, that some of the overpopulated categories can maybe be split. Anyway, I'll be busy for the next some days, so will be leaving this discussion. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Diversity is not equal to being in the same "box", I would think, Osiris myth is different enough from a modern preacher, both would be in Religion. I understand the boxes as a help to find something, no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Back to the discussion of points, I think they may be handy to break a tie between two equally good articles vying for the same date, but they should not be used as a shield to keep worthy articles off the main page. As for diversity, my take is that what I see at a casual glance at the main page is pretty diverse on at least a monthly basis, "diversity" is really more about what's in the pool and what gets nominated; if someone wants more articles at TFA that are about Africa, for example, then get 'em to FA and nominate them; I don't see anything getting rejected for being TOO diverse -- I think that argument is a solution in search of a problem. Montanabw(talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That mistakes the issue; the pool is not very diverse at all, but the main pages are, as a result of efforts including this page. Though we have not had heaps of road, tv or milhist noms recently, and are giving sport a bit of a rest after the Olympics, if people see the rules have been relaxed, eventually you risk loads of such noms, and some people seem determined to remove the rules that have successfully thwarted this in the past, and kept a balanced main page diet. We may indeed be in danger of running out of most more traditional encyclopedic topics, and have not had options in many areas for a long time (see above). Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the ones near "zero" have remained there with minor variation simply because the selector grabs them when they become available. We are not selecting every day, there is much room for Dabomb to "fill in the blanks" with his own choices. If we are given, say, several hurricane nominations at a time (it's that time of year, nothing against hurricanes in particular) then we can deal with the situation by tweaking the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Only for tie-breaking - I think the points were more useful a few years ago when there was lots of competition. But nowadays they are not so relevant. I recommend dropping them unless there are 2 or more articles nominated for the same day. Also, I'd say it is fine to nominate an article with 0 or 1 points, but at the same time diversity should be encouraged. --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general comment on TFA picking: I try very hard to diversify the selection of TFAs. However, as many of you have hinted at above, I am limited to what I have available to me. In addition, "diversity" itself has several aspects, all of which I need to take into account: subject, geographical region (US, UK, Australia, India, Brazil, etc.), article type (biographies, broad topics, specific events, modern-day, historical, etc.), even gender. On top of all that, there are other important issues: the primary author, maintainence of the article, presence of a suitable picture, reader interest, main-page appropriateness (not usually an issue), date relevance, time since promotion, and others that I can't think of right now. Raul and I do our best, but as the archives of this and other talk pages will tell you, we can't always satisfy everyone, or even most people. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I watch TFA only recenty and see that you are selecting well! If you don't go by points but by reason, we don't need to waste time in the calculation ;) - Please schedule a few more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I've only paid attention to TFA recently but I've been quite satisfied with Dabomb's work. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree, Dabomb is doing a good job while in a difficult situation through no fault of his own.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing the points. The purpose of the page is to give the FA Director, or his TFA Delegate, suggestions for possible choices to be scheduled. It is not the scheduling mechanism itself. Small groups should not be making decisions on how to change its core function, nor its process. Such a radical change to the methodology of this page needs a wider discussion than the small handful of people participating. I suggest that those desiring change open an RfC. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imzadi, and because the points highlight a range of factors affecting choices which are otherwise going to be forgotten: diversity, age and so on. They aren't often actually the basis for competition between nominations, especially with the current expanded number of slots, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. With the points system (as it was anyway) you knew somebody had checked the various factors. If there's no need for points this is likely to cease to be the case. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose eliminating points. At this time I can't see the benefit of eliminating the point system and though I'm not in love with the system, do see a benefit of keeping it. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's clear to me at least that there's no consensus to remove the requirement for point calculation; Imzadi and Johnbod make good points as well (no pun intended) and I now support retention of the points system. BencherliteTalk 06:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose seeing a lot of forgetting to check proximity and other various factors without the points. --Rschen7754 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • “Support”. This is tiresome; everyone lining up on ideological lines. The points are to be deprecated; issues to be hashed out by discussion as is bog-standard on Wikipedia. cf WP:BURO and WP:IAR ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) “jAck” 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a simpler process

Based on the above exchange of ideas I see the following: TFA wants to connect to specific days, but that is not possible for all of them. Example: the next dated requested is for 5 Oct, we have to fill 1-4 Oct with other articles. I suggest to split suggestions for those, don't list them in the tally but below the dated ones and simply discuss them. They certainly don't need any calculation of points. If you ask me, they don't even need "slots" and could be any number. To stay with the example: four are needed in the near future, one should be scheduled today if we want to maintain "a week in advance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between this suggestion and the current system of a nomination for a nonspecific date, of which there has been a steady number in the last couple of weeks (some successful, others not)? Why do we need a third section on the page? Are you working from a starting point that the community needs to suggest an article for every day, rather than leaving Raul/Dabomb to fill in the gaps between those nominations that they accept? If so, that would be a radical change to the way that TFA works and this page's part in that process. BencherliteTalk 11:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The difference: I seem to have been not clear enough that I suggest a second section (not a third) replacing the "Nonspecific date nominations" (whatever "Nonspecific date" may mean). I gave an example, to discuss that before changing, you removed it, it was like this. The differences: 1) the nominations without a date show below the others, to give prime importance to the others. 2) They are not part of the tally, don't need points, don't need slots. 3) There can be as many as wanted. - I am working from the starting point that TFA can be a collaboration, and that both Raul and Dabomb are busy in real life (see their talk). It seems that Dabomb is taking suggestions readily, why not help ;) Please discuss. - I will now add the removed suggestion in a slot, and inform the author, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This didn't work well before the present system was introduced. It isn't the job of this page to provide all the TFA choices, and it will be much more useful if it produces a smaller number of well-considered suggestions. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod. If there are too many suggestions, we risk inadequate scrutiny by the relatively few people who edit here - compare how many complained on Talk:Main Page about an image on TFA compared to how many discussed it at TFAR before selection, even after notice of the discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of the image was posted at T:MP before and after the article was selected. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
well, I don't see how it could be worse than the way it is now, with editors not notified and articles featured on the main page that are unprepared, have dead links and such? Who's in charge now? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
well, you are, I am, everybody can contribute a share. If dead links trouble you, look at the articles to come and do something about it. If you don't like a blurb, change it. If you think exact formatting is essential, format. If you have a better picture, suggest it. If you want something scheduled for 1 Oct - overdue - pick and schedule. "The Games must go on" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
well said; what's happeding of late is that this process is reverting to a proper wiki-model. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
the puling masses always whine about shite on the main page. This page is getting plenty of eyeballs ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
yeah, I think it really is. TFA got plenty of looks! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling overdue

Where I live is 5 Oct, scheduling is done for only three more days. I suggest to schedule Hanged, drawn and quartered and hope I won't have to do it myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is time, and we have a set of "emergency blurbs" ready to run if necessary. Please don't act outside of the existing system, thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I expressly said I don't want to. But I don't see that "there is time". To polish articles and blurb the best possible way, a week in advance seems minimum to me, two weeks would be safer. Is it right that the emergency blurbs are all biographies? We can do do better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not an emergency, yet. I see no need to panic. Meanwhile, there is nothing preventing you from polishing Hanged, drawn and quartered. --Rschen7754 23:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Define emergency, define panic, - three more are missing to look a week ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is. The owner. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been much discussion about keeping things at least a week or two ahead. It's not an Emergency but that does not mean that action is not warranted. The 'existing system' is in long-term failure mode; bzzt ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that it's a concern that the people who are supposedly the "existing system" aren't doing their job; as one of the lead editors of the TFA up today, I was immensely grateful to have had a couple weeks that this article was in the queue, as we had to fix a couple dead links and do some other tidying. I think that TFAs need to be firmly scheduled two weeks in advance as routine practice; and if the existing people are burning out on the job, they need to let others who are trained and willing to help them. Gerda has been an excellent contributor to the process, and I think it is appropriate to ask a few more people to help with all of this. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that de.wiki has items scheduled right through to the end of the year, and ideas sketched out as far in advance as May 12, 2020? Why are we constantly living on the razor's edge here? My opinion is that it would a lot more sense to give editors time to prepare. Two weeks notice seems to me to be the bare acceptable minimum, and the level of organisation seen at de.wiki should be a target to strive for, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think scheduling that far in advance is good, as we can't predict how the world will change by the end of the year and how that might affect scheduling. But that's a tangent. Here's the thing: I do agree that how things are isn't ideal. Raul is frequently MIA, and so we're hoping that Dabomb, who apparently is very busy, remembers to schedule things. It's a bit screwed up, to be blunt. But until there's a better solution, that's what we have to deal with. Otherwise, I can schedule California State Route 78 (an article I wrote) and California State Route 57 the next day (another article I got to FA) and U.S. Route 131 the next (another road FA) and so on and so forth, and who's going to stop me? --Rschen7754 05:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Please explain MIA, I have problems with English, and more problems with abbreviations. Do you really think it would set a good precedent to schedule (you? by what right that I would not have?) a work of your own? (I carefully avoided scheduling something that I had suggested, not even written.) I like community consensus, I like planning two weeks in advance, I think it might work and be "a better solution", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that you have the right to break the rules and schedule an article, then why can't I break the rules and schedule all 35+ FAs that the U.S. Roads project has, all in a row? That leads to complete anarchy and chaos, and I don't think we want that. I do believe that the system needs improvement for the sole reason that Raul and Dabomb are mostly inactive right now, and I am trying to think of an orderly way to get us out of this mess. --Rschen7754 08:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting revealing thoughts. - Missing in action, thanks for the term, Crisco! Rschen, just in case you didn't understand me so far: I go for consensus. Look at the archive of September, produced in anarchy: it looks good to me. Dabomb did great scheduling, and I hope he will keep doing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
On de.wiki it is done purely by consensus. If events call for a different article to run, they put up an Alternativvorschlag (alternative proposal), and decide by consensus which one should be run. Here's something else we could emulate: a whole week's worth of articles at a glance, which looks like it would be a great way of visually checking if the week's articles have sufficient variety. -- Dianna (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like we have consensus so use Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered, so it could run on the 9th, and Allegro on the 10th. Then we would have nearly a week scheduled. I have another candidate prepped for a non-specific slot so I will post it for consideration even though my battleship nomination is still on the board. I am going to ask Ucucha why the bot is not notifying interested editors any more. -- Dianna (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That would be fine. Once I know Allegro is running, I can spend a little time polishing it this weekend. The time helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I am thinking we need more slots for non-specific dates; if we are going to choose by consensus the more stuff we have vetted the easier it will be to do it without having to pick random stuff at the last minute. Comments? -- Dianna (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Dabomb scheduled another 10 days, so we have a bit more slack for now. --Rschen7754 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's super excellent. I am off to hunt for another non-specific to clean up and nominate. — Dianna (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Good news, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wishes for a TFA

After we faced more than once 1) an article which was not wanted to appear by its author at all, and 2) an article wanted a specific day by its author: can we place such wishes right on top of the article's talk? It would help us newcomers to the TFA process. Needless to say, I would also appreciate a long-term calendar of wishes, having seen a note to self for 2014. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could always try asking the principal author(s) *before* you decide to nominate, and then give them a chance to respond before you in fact nominate... might save you some wasted typing! BencherliteTalk 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
In an estimated half of the cases (example today), said author is not active anymore. In other cases, I would have to ask three authors. - I did not yet consider my typing "wasted". - I am new to the process, so far I had believed articles were raised to FA standard to appear. I am learning: no. - I see no reason why not to mention on the talk page that an article is intended to appear a specific date for a specific reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You could also skim the article for any pertinent dates, just in case. Granted, you won't be able to predict everything, but it might catch some of these scenarios. --Rschen7754 07:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I looked at Reception history of Jane Austen and saw no date that would have indicated to me that it should run 28 January. The list of pending requests doesn't go that far. That's one reason why I didn't yet "park" it as waiting. The other reason is that the blurb could well shortened by the competent literature people now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As a partial aside "try asking the principal author(s)" does indicate that some authors have a greater say over the management of articles than others. This really does go against WP:OWN: no one single author should be able to stop an article going on the front page, that should be left to the community as a whole, surely. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
People here get too hung up on the idea of "ownership". "People familiar with the topic are more likely to know of problems regarding it" isn't a blasphemy against the spirit of the internet, it's a simple statement of fact. There are any number of reasons an article shouldn't run at a given time (an upcoming major work on the topic that hasn't yet been worked into the article, upcoming more appropriate date, errors in the existing article that have yet to be corrected, potential legal sensitivities, etc). Per my comments to Pumpkinsky and Bencherlite earlier, as someone who's had to come out of retirement three times in the last month to get inappropriate nominations either pulled from the TFA queue or withdrawn from the requests page, thanks to certain people deciding that "If you are not one of the article's primary editors, it is generally considered polite to notify the primary editors on their user talk pages of the TFA nomination or (if they are no longer active) to add a message to the article talk page" doesn't apply to them, I would definitely support making pre-notification compulsory. – iridescent 19:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with notification to the primary editors as a courtesy, but the line that an article shouldn't run because one person doesn't want it to appear just doesn't—and shouldn't—wash under any circumstances. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling overdue II

and all any-date slots are full. Please replace in the above the suggestion by Introduction to viruses --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Slot 1 is unused. BencherliteTalk 16:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
is unused NOW, I "parked" it because two people found it too close to the last South Indian one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Note label

User: Br'er Rabbit has repeatedly blocked FAs and TFAs for the use of this notation format. Now that he has been banned, will this still be a problem? Serendipodous 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please I really need an answer to this, because I want to get a TFA up in December and I don't want it shot down for trivial reasons. Serendipodous 11:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead and nominate it, and we can go from there. --Rschen7754 05:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing nominations without explanation

I'd like to request that people explain why they're removing nominations from WP:TFAR when they take them off the page. It's awful confusing when people remove them without explaining why or just hinting about issues, especially when they've just been added to the page. I know we're all busy, but a bit of explanation would be helpful in the future. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it and have explained. Will explain more later. One thing for sure though is that after this I guarantee my user page will probably have to be protected again. You and others have to understand that this is not something I would have done lightly. I've never added or deleted a single entry here. Also, please add the diffs for the deletion and the reversion. I haven't the time to dig for them at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation TK. Also, please let me know if you ever need your page protected, I'm online most of the time. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
When I remove articles here I give the reason in the edit summary. One reason is that the article was scheduled but not cleared here. Another reason is that so many users want more spacing between "similar" subjects, or a later date, that an article gets parked in between to make room here, for example the article for the anniversary of "Pride and Prejudice", the last mushroom, you name it. It will return to here when a more appropriate time comes. (Feel free to add requests there, no date limits.) In both case I don't see a need for notification. I try now to notify users when I nominate their article, - forgetting happens, please remind me then. - So far no archiving of TFAR was organised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
ok, I get the idea that FA is corrupt. Won't be nominating or interacting in any way with TFA from now on. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Sturmvogel 66 (below). I'll redact. Being a newbie, I don't know what the heck is going on. People have secret information about why articles listed as FA aren't eligible to be on the main page. Us newbies are out of luck. Secret stuff conducted by email. Sign me "confused" also. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And that follows how? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (confused)
Hmm, interesting. Surely, by your logic that "FA is corrupt", you would need to avoid all elements of FA (FAC, FAR, FAs, etc), not just TFA? Unless of course you meant something else by your first sentence, in which case I would be delighted to entertain your explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Truthkeeper. Just because an article is FA doesn't prevent FA editors from "knowing" that it's plagiarized and/or copyvio. Plus we all know that articles have run on the main page with major faults. FAR is like molasses and in no way protects the FA pool from corrupt FAs. If Truthkeeper has such major concerns about the Miss Moffitt article, why didn't she list it at FAR? So why are all her concerns listed on her talk page, at FAC, at TFA etc. instead of FAR, the logical place, especially since she makes it clear she's had these concerns for quite a while. What's with all this "out of procedure" stuff? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "out of procedure" but I have to ask, as I did multiple times yesterday, that you stop assuming bad faith. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe she's already explained in depth why the article has not been to FAR. There's quite a lot of background to this case, so if you're interested you might need to spend a few hours familiarizing yourself with it. If you have any further questions after having done all the readings I'm sure we'd be happy to answer your good-faith questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Truthkeeper has indicated in one of her many posts (scattered about) that she is preparing to bring Miss Moffit to FAR. I don't see what is "bad faith" about recommending that the standard procedures be followed. She has also said that any FA that has any edits by a sockpuppet should be removed from FA. That's quite a statement. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:TPNO the statement above and this edit summary [4] are problematic in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, quite a statement. One she never made. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added links of all the threads for all the conversations that happened today to my page here with a timeline of why the Miss Moppet page shouldn't be on the main page. I believe this nomination was made in good faith, but it's important that we retain the institutional history and I'd request we discuss and reach consensus on how to identify specific articles that for various reasons should not be showcased as TFA. When a decision is made I'd suggest we discuss and reach consensus on how to identify these pages. In the case of Miss Moppet I have no objection to having it de-listed to prevent this from happening again, but I believe there may be other articles that for various reasons aren't good main page material. I suggest we place them in some sort of a category so it's apparent to future editors when nominations to TFA are made. I'll cross post to the FAC talk page. Please discuss this proposal. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
see also above: wishes for TFA, please tag somehow on the talk of a FA that something is special about it. Too bad that Raul who seems to have known all this, has "better things to do", — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure that Raul knew anything as I've never had contact with him. When I mention institutional history, I mean something like the "knowledge of the folk" (I'm sure there's a German word) and for a place like this, when we begin to lose people the knowledge goes with them. That said, no one is obligated to work on a volunteer project so we have to muddle through as best as possible. I'm interested, Gerda, in your idea about placing something on the talk page. Do you mean a banner or something? That might work. I most likely will take Miss Moppet to FAR (need to consult with MRG first) but my concern is how do we stop that page, and many like those, from becoming FA again and being run on the main page? Truthkeeper (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
But should our objective be to "stop that page ... from becoming FA again"? I think it is important to make a clear distinction between "that page" and "that subject". What I mean is, just suppose that I (or another) decided to write an article on Miss Moppet from scratch, using all the best sources. Having completed it, I replace the existing "tainted" text with my version. I then nominate at FAR so that the star, if kept, is related to my text. In those hypothetical circumstances, presumably the taint associated with the replaced text would no longer apply and my version could become TFA? Or is the subject itself permanently tainted? Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems like FAC is irrevocably tainted in the olden days and there's a sekret black list. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Brian I don't know the answer to this. Essentially the page has been rewritten from scratch. My solution would be to suggest lifting the existing text from the page via copy/paste, delete the entire page and page history, and then recreate the page with a new history and either copy in the existing text (which has been rewritten top to bottom) or have someone else rewrite entirely new text. The greater problem is all the pages it links to. The Beatrix Potter page has an edit history that is riddled with prior copyvio and because I've taken it off my watchlist and I can't tell you what it looks like now. All the Potter pages were full of copyvio; many were simply deleted. The ones that exist we have to assume have copyvio. So, it's a gray area. My fear is that all the Potter pages are tainted and my wish is that we make a decision somewhere about how to deal with the taint. I'll have to consult with MRG as soon as I have time. What to do about the existing pages with the copyvio is a separate question from the FA/TFA question. But if someone were to bring Beatrix Potter to FA, the same issues would apply. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
well, Moonriddengirl says that "edit history" doesn't count. What counts is the "actual history" in the minds of the oldbies. (See her page.)[5] So much for rationality. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I never said anything remotely suggesting that "edit history" doesn't count. Once you again, you seem to be putting your own interpretation on my words. --Moonriddengirl (talk)
  • The way I see it, there are several articles that - for various reasons - are likely not to reach the main page. Jenna Jameson for multiple reasons that most people here know, Fuck the Millennium for the F-bomb, various articles as the main contributor does not want it on the main page... and articles which have a terrible place in Wikipedia's institutional memory. TK has explained the issues with Miss Moppet very clearly: ILT was very prolific, terrible at paraphrasing (or even using his/her own words), and found out for massive copyright violations. What's worse, xhe continues to sock and edit articles which xhe has an interest in.
Although TK and other editors have handled the main copyright issues with Miss Moppet before, I'm pretty sure that critics of Wikipedia would have an easy time to find the lurid backstory here and make an issue of it. There's also the possibility that ILT snuck into the article and added more copyvio, one which we should not doubt. Tons of Disney articles are protected because of BambiFan: a single editor can have massive negative consequences on the development of an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of a table just listing them - without a reason - for an easy reference "better look for something else". It's tricky for nominators to find a balance of topics and relevance for dates. The most elegant way would be to have a template in the list of TFAs, like the one saying "appeared" it could say "should not appear". Ask Br'er Rabbit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If privacy is a concern such a table would be acceptable, but adding an article would need community consensus (I hope, at least). I, for one, don't mind Jenna going on the main page, but Raul has been heavily against it since the article was promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that, unless prominently displayed and I don't know where, a table would be hard to find. As far as I'm concerned the options are a.) stop promoting articles that can't be "featured" on the main page; b.) create a category of featured articles that can't be featured; c.) put a talkpage banner on a featured article that can't be featured. At any rate, we should draw up a short list and try to get consensus for it. I didn't know about the ones that Crisco added and generally agree they wouldn't go over well. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Pointer

It doesn't really affect WP:TFA/R, but someone suggested you folks be notified that there's a proposal at Talk:Main Page to tweak the format of the TFA section. I figured it can't hurt to let you know. It's at Talk:Main Page#Featured article link--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

More Miss Moppet

  • Because it came up here seems logical place a notfication here that the article was sent to FAR. [6]. It's probably a good place for the discussion to occur and for the community to decide what to do. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Featuring "old" FAs on Main Page

Bencherlite correctly pointed out on my talk page that I'd neglected to post anything here, so here I am. I recently made a bit of a fuss on several pages, but mostly centralised at WT:FAR, following the appearance of an FA on Main Page that I thought was substandard.

It turned out that it was what I've come to categorise as an "old" FA. IMHO, there was a significant enhancement of the FA standards from 2009. That and the fact that old articles naturally decay without proper stewardship made me wonder what the state of other FAs from 2008 and earlier might be and whether they are indeed suitable for Main Page.

To ascertain the scale of the problem, I'm conducting an audit at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page‎ of articles promoted in 2008 or earlier, that are still FAs, that have yet to appear on Main Page and haven't been through FAR or a subsequent FAC since 2008.

I'd welcome help from other reviewers - a quick scan through is what I'm looking for, rather than a FAC-type in-depth review. I'd especially welcome help from reviewers happy to look at hurricane/tropical storm articles. There are also some football/cricket articles I had a large or small role in promoting that someone else should assess - if you let me know you're interested, I can list them for you. Thanks in advance. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Heroic work! Sorry, but I won't be able to help out. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Main page TFA rewording

A discussion at T:MP has resulted in two changes relevant to editors here: (1) the TFA section is now headed "From today's featured article" and (2) the "more..." link at the end has been changed to "Read the full article". I neither participated in nor closed the discussion; I'm just notifying you all of the result. Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the main page header be changed to "From today's featured list" as well? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Already done. BencherliteTalk 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, must have missed it – it wasn't changed when I checked earlier. Regards, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Done by me about 3 1/2 hours after the TFA wording change. Good to see that great minds think alike! BencherliteTalk 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Participants in the Ian Fleming scheduling decision

Just to let you know, I've mentioned you at Talk:Main_Page#TFA:_...the_latest_screen_incarnation.2C_Skyfall.2C_is_due_to_premiere_in_London_on_23_October_2012. If at all possible, please don't join in the "discussion" - I'm trying to get the IP to stop flogging his dead horse. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Audit of old FAs - report

Auditing the old FAs (here's a link to the page where I did the work) is taking a lot longer than I thought it would, and it's also stopping me from generating new content, so I'm going to stop now at a fairly random point. Here's what I found:

2003 and earlier There are no current FAs that have not yet appeared on Main Page.

2004 There are 2 FAs that have not yet appeared on Main Page. One is currently inappropriate for Main Page and the other needs a small amount of work.

2005 There are 3 FAs that have not yet appeared on Main Page. One was relatively recently reviewed at FAC or FAR so is not counted. Of the remaining two, both are currently inappropriate for Main Page.

2006 There are 55 FAs that have not yet appeared on Main Page. Three were relatively recently reviewed at FAC or FAR so are not counted. Of the remaining 52, I (or a helper, thank you!) have reviewed 28. Of those 28, 17 are inappropriate for main page, and some of the remaining 11 have some specific issues that really need work before appearing there.

So, in summary: 32 articles reviewed 20 are currently inappropriate for Main Page and some of the other 12 ought to have a bit of work first.

My conclusions? I'm surprised the results are as good as they are, but they're not great. I think the figures are awkwardly in the grey area, where it's not really clear whether a problem exists.

The six hurricane articles (most of which I didn't review, personally) split 5-1 (fine-inappropriate) so if you exclude them, it's rather more stark: 19 bad, 7 good.

Views, opinions? --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To me, this would say that these articles need to start going through FAR, preferably a few at a time to avoid overwhelming the program. Perhaps some of the editors here would like to start making notifications on talk pages, and then nominating the articles for FAR if there is no response? Dweller, your audit looks to be quite useful for targeting articles that need help, so thank you for undertaking it. Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks indeed! 2007 is about when we would expect to see the new higher standards kick in, isn't it? I agree we should FAR the 2003/4 ones, or spruce up Quatermass and the Pit at least, then trickle the rest through. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and maybe nominate spruced-up ones on the mainpage where possible too. I think the FAR process is about the best thing we can do, and nominate a combination of ones needing the most major work and with active wikiprojects that can be fixed. I'll ping the birds wikiproject about Elfin-woods Warbler....Dino wikiproject not hugely active, but Psittacosaurus not identified as being in too poor a shape. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Six responses to this:

  1. I'd be happy for people to use my work for choosing articles to nominate, and I suppose the delegates may want to take a look, too.
  2. The FAR route is what I had in mind for the poor ones, but it's clearly even better if articles are fixed up by individuals or WikiProjects.
  3. This response is heart-warmingly pleasing and encourages me to continue reviewing a few articles each week, to extend the process and replenish the pot.
  4. I'd welcome others to join in - don't be put off by the fact it's in userspace currently.
  5. Does anyone know how to get a bot to remove from the page any articles that do go on to Main Page or get delisted at FAR?
  6. To address [both aspects of] point 4, I'm thinking of converting this work into a new WikiProject (say Wikipedia:WikiProject Old Featured Articles Audit). There's no point doing that if the WikiProject will have just one member. If you're interested in this idea, please post here: User talk:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#Sign up here.

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed joint Obama/Romney TFA for November 6

I realize it's short notice, but Mitt Romney has just been promoted to FA, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive2, and Barack Obama has been FA for a long time. Four years ago this time, there was a joint TFA that showed the Obama and John McCain article, which was also FA, side by side on the U.S. general election day. See Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/November_4,_2008.

I think it would be a good thing to do this again. It shows that Wikipedia can regularly produce featured content on even the the most contentious of subjects at the most contentious of times. I see that another article has already been slotted for November 6, which is this year's election, but perhaps it can be bumped back a few days. (I had hoped to have this request lined up earlier, but the FAC first got delayed and then took a long time to complete.)

Unfortunately I don't have time right now to write the proposed blurbs for the side-by-side, as I live in central New Jersey and I still have no power due to Hurricane Sandy and my accesses to WP are very infrequent. But if there is a positive response to this proposal, I can hopefully find a chance over the weekend to do the blurbs, or another editor can. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

November 6 has already been scheduled, with Carlson's patrol running. For the record, featuring an article for a third time, and making a two-for-one exception for a national, not international, event twice in a row is a bad idea. Until we start running two-for-ones for more than just the US election then it's best to stick with something neutral for that event. GRAPPLE X 12:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Grapple X. In fact, it's two bad ideas in one (repeating a TFA, having a double TFA). Apart from Obama, the only other article to be TFA twice was Transit of Venus (repeated on the day of its last appearance this century) on the basis that none of us alive now will see the event again. US presidential elections are not of the same degree of rarity. BencherliteTalk 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Technically, Nick Drake ran for two days, but that was over the SOPA blackout (itself a terrible idea) so running a new article would have been a waste of a slot. GRAPPLE X 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I remembered that situation (although I couldn't remember the article in question, thanks for the memory jog) but discounted that on the basis that it still only had 24 hours of exposure, not 48. BencherliteTalk 12:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"national, not international" because no one outside the U.S. is paying attention to this? Or because it affects no one outside America? Either way that's false. Sure, it is a national election. But let's not pretend it's not important elsewhere. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a national election. The Argentinian election has international reach but I don't see us clamouring to run special exceptions for that; ditto for China, most of the EU, Russia etc etc. Every major election has international importance but not a one of them is an international event. Simple as. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying whether or not we should make an exception, and I think that's a completely valid reason to say no. But I'm tired of people understating its significance. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, okay, you keep towing that line for the sake of argument, even though we all know that's not true. -- tariqabjotu 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Me? or him? Hot Stop (Edits) 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If this is aimed at me, I find that ridiculous to believe. There are huge political upheavals and debates across the world right now, between the Middle East dealing with Syria, the European Union looking at the possible collapse of an international currency, and the Sinosphere preparing for a once-a-decade shift in China's leadership. One election whose international repercussions in recent years have, barring the withdrawal of troops from actions started over a decade earlier, been largely diplomatic, is simply not the largest international event any more. GRAPPLE X 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me understand the source of your confusion. -- tariqabjotu 13:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that one exemption was enough. The article selected for November 6 has a high date significance and was promoted more than four years ago. I'm also not particularly fond of the idea that seemed to hover over the Mitt Romney FAC that this dual scheduling was a foregone conclusion.-- tariqabjotu 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I never assumed that the dual scheduling would occur even if the Romney article made FAC - I always anticipated there would be a lot of resistance to it, both due to Obama going up for a third time and due to some of the same criticisms from last time. And I respect all the arguments being made, then and now. Fortunately, there's a lot of value in having both candidates be FA going into election day, regardless of whether they are on TFA or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea. Election day in the USA is a fairly well-known event internationally, and I see no point featuring some article that has nothing to do with the presidential election. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It has plenty to do with November 6, though, which is why it was selected. GRAPPLE X 13:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I know, I just feel like a reader will be looking for something election-related as TFA that day, and will be uninterested with the article currently scheduled. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You mean, of course, an American reader. The rest of the world says 'hi'. Resolute 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
A large number of non-Americans are also aware of US presidential elections; thanks for the sarcasm. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no doubt. But being aware of a foreign election and thinking "I hope they ran a TFA about it. Maybe the Obama article, yet again" are not the same thing. As with any major election, it can and should be covered under ITN. Resolute 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I dont agree with running the duel articles, while WP covers the spectrum of topics coinciding with the US elections again with articles of the two main contenders is questionable especially as we dont do it for other countries. What was novel/niave idea 4 years ago shouldnt be set in stone as a mandatory requirement for every US election. Surely within hours both article will fail both the stability test and comprehensiveness, IMHO if Romney is successful wouldnt it be better to for the article to be stand alone TFA at inaugriation in couple of months. Its not like either article is going to lack traffic on the day anyway. Gnangarra 13:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I liked the idea 4 years ago, and if we had two candidates of any election I think doing it again would be good...just not so sure about running Obama again Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The danger of setting precedents... Oppose both the use of dual TFAs absent a reason to do so other than "because it would be neat", but vehemently oppose running the Obama article again. It's already been TFA twice, and there is no reason at all to run it a third time. Also, lets face it, a dual TFA proposal would never fly for a British, Canadian or Australian election (not withstanding the fact that they are all multi-party systems), so this proposal is also highly Americacentric. Resolute 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd happily agree to us running a single relevant FA on an election day for any country (eg Politics in Foo), so long as it wasn't one that gave an appearance of bias, but not two, and not one that's already Featured. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, although the idea is great, but like User:Resolute said, its not a "that" (for some it is, dont get me wrong) a major thing in England. Also, it is me, or is it a tad bit bias? — M.Mario (T/C) 14:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh Hell No! NO need to privilege US politics over those of any other country.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope. Featuring both was fine as a one-off, but I wouldn't want to see it becoming a four-yearly tradition. Run the Romney article on some other relevant date, like maybe his birthday or something. Prioryman (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obama's already run twice. --Rschen7754 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not in favour of running these articles; I am Canadian and have not been following the election at all. It's US-centric and biased to run these on election day. Obama has already appeared on the main page twice, and is not in as good of shape as it used to be. -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Points again

(The following discussion was started on my talk.)

Hi Gerda, I see you've added a point each for the December 1 nominations but can you please calculate according to all the points: when promoted; whether widely covered; based on the primary contributor's recent TFAs; and degree of representation. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeating: I don't do point math. I calculated one support each, my own ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you follow the system that's been in place for a long time? Consensus is the mechanism we use on WP to make decisions, and there hasn't been consensus to overturn the point system. I'm busy elsewhere and don't want to have to do it for you. If you nominate, you should be prepared to calculate the points. It's really that simple. You might not agree with it, but it's how do things here. At least in theory. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Because of this question, I don't see consensus for points --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you see consensus there? Perhaps I should bring it up there. What I see right now is confusion because some, such as yourself, don't use points and others do. Obviously some pages are no-brainers such as Betelguese, but when two are at the same time, then how do you propose we choose? I see that Brian has kindly removed the other which leaves only the princess, but these situations will occur again and it's nice to have a system that works. If you think this system doesn't, perhaps propose one that does? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, your defence seems to be "its beyond me". Thats fine, but dont berate others if thats the case. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the function of the page you've linked to? What confused me is that there was a request in the queue, and then another request was added. I have great respect for Brian and don't like to upset him; have done so repeatedly now. Equally I have great respect for Maria and also opposed there. It would be helpful to look a little more closely to prevent these things from happening. Personally I don't bother nominating there and leave it to the delegates. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The page should explain itself, please let me know what isn't clear. - I don't see Brian upset here. - The explorer was added to pending requests by Sven Manguard after the princess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I dont think any of us look well here. We squabbled on an FA of Brian's, one of the kmost helpful and gracious editors you could hope to meet. It was not a good time to take it up. This ends now. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Brian didn't seem bothered at all, and clearly put a stop to the flurry of polar expedition nominations this year - which someone had to do - and Truthkeeper88 could have removed the nomination herself, as Gerda did. Why leave all the work to the clearly overworked delegate? Calculating the "points" are a nightmare; Truthkeeper88 could have done it but didn't. Why not? Leave all that calculating to Dabomb? What looks bad is everyone backing out and refusing to chip in, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Mathew, but you are missing the point. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, I simply swung through and looked at the nominations last night or at some point. I asked Gerda a simple question to which no answer is forthcoming. She wrote "pending requests" on the Brazilian article and I saw a completely different one on the pending requests. Since I didn't nominate the onus isn't on me to calculate points. It's very unfortunate that Brian got caught up in this, but the truth is, it's not the first time it's happened. Gerda says above she doesn't use math or points, yet it's a system long established by consensus and so why are we now throwing it away? At any rate, it's probably better for you to post these remarks on TFA talk so we can hash it out there. I suspect this will happen again, and keep in mind that already one request for arbitration has been opened in regards to TFA. If the problems are continuing by proxy, which is what it appears to me, then we'll be going through this again and again. Bottom line: nominator calculates points as you see the others doing. I hope that answers your questions about why I haven't. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
waking up, mildly astonished, trying to clarify: pending requests are in a transcluded box - UNTIL they are requested. Everybody is free to enter to pending, everybody is free to nominate from there, everybody is free to calculate points at that point, I don't because they serve a function ONLY when there is "competition" about a specific date, I think it's a waste of time for the regular nomination. I said this on the TFA talk and am ready to repeat it there. The list WP:QAI/TFA is open to suggestions for any time in any style, from just mentioning an article for a date to a blurb suggestion, - if that is not clear on the page please let me know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

end of copy, start of discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The hardest thing about calculating points is reviewing the list of recent TFAs to see when the last similar TFA appeared. I think that it's useful to calculate points to force the nominator to see how long it's been and to resolve any (infrequent) ties for a specific date. I think it's important to retain the current points system for exactly those reasons and I would argue that if a nominator doesn't calculate the points that the nomination be deleted after one or two pointed reminders. The burden, such as it is, should rest on the shoulders of the nominator, not the delegate or any other person.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't take much effort to calculate the points, so this seems like more of an individual protest against the points system (in the hope that if a prolific nominator doesn't do it, no one will?)...
Also, while I agree with the spirit of Mathew's post, Truthkeeper is not required to calculate points, and it seems obvious that it's better to address a problem at its source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The points served a function as long as we had only 2 any-date slots here and five dated ones, and there was competition for those slots, decided by points. They don't serve a function anymore, imho, so why bother. I would be interested in a word from the scheduler, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We just went through this, Gerda! I was the one who suggested getting rid of points, in fact, but was persuaded by the arguments to the contrary, and there was certainly no consensus to do away with points. The points system requires people to consider various important factors. In no particular order:

  1. How old is the FA? The older it is, the more there might be a sense of "it's about time it had its turn", but the more one might want to check that the article is still in good condition. Not every one checks - there are two TFAR nominations with dead links, for instance.
  2. Is this a "newbie's" FA? The bonus point for this is, I think, designed to help encourage new FA contributors with the increased prospect of their work being TFA sooner rather than later. (slight correction/clarification: the point bonus only applies if the requestor is the prime contributor, so those who nominate FAs by others can just skip this.)
  3. Is this a good date for the article, and if so why?
  4. Is it an article on an 'important' subject, either as we have determined these to be with the lists of vital articles and core topics, or as demonstrated by coverage of it in many languages?
  5. Is it an article on a topic where WP is short of FAs? This in theory helps encourage those who want to write on topics about (for example) engineering, computing, chemistry, geology, medicine and philosophy where Wikipedia needs added depth of coverage in high-quality articles.
  6. When did something like this last appear? This helps those who comment, and the scheduler, with appropriate spacing out of subjects. People might have different views on whether two articles are "similar" but actually most of the time it's not controversial.

Ignoring the points system and then nominating something with just the words "from pending requests" does the nomination a disservice and hinders discussion at TFAR because all these factors are still relevant, nay important. The points are as useful as they were, even if they are unlikely to form the choice between appearing on this page and being booted off by another nomination, because they address the factors which experience has shown are valid considerations for discussion and selection.

Gerda, please calculate points in future nominations, to the best of your ability (and it's not a nightmare, really) - if you get it wrong, others will no doubt discuss. Otherwise I agree with Sturmvogel that nominations without point calculations should be removed after a reminder is left with no response. BencherliteTalk 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed a new nomination from Gerda that did not calculate the points (and also took one of your comments, Bencherlite—sorry about that). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I agree. Not only was Gerda ignoring the points and the consensus here, but she was ignoring all the explanatory factors (age, similarity, date relevance) that help commentators and the scheduler(s) know which are the best requests. BencherliteTalk 21:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA delegate volunteers/nominations

For those who missed my comment on WT:FAC, I'm considering nominating a new TFA delegate and I'm interested in suggestions / volunteers. If anyone here is interested, please contact me privately. Raul654 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you consider to nominate more than one, and named Bencherlite on said page, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you suggest yourself Gerda, do you think you'd have broad support of your judgement and pushy, aw shucks, style? Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I would not suggest myself ;) - I am the cleaning lady of TFA, no more. The only two FA's I was involved in will not be requested until March and September 2013, - way too little experience, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that any name given by Raul be considered, but that the community discuss it when it is made and make the final decision. After all, Raul is inactive and may be unaware of editors who could do a good job. Necessarily, he will have to rely heavily on those who choose to advise him, and I don't see how his judgment would be better than that of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I don't think these kinds of comments do much to diffuse tension or factionalism. I do, however, agree with you that at this point transparency is paramount - particularly given the, now stricken, comment about enemies. I assume you consider me an enemy - but I haven't any intention of sending Raul email. Were I to make a recommendation, and I've been watching this page for a number of months now, I suggest Bencherlite, if he has the time. He's been doing excellent work. There are a few others I've thought of, having stayed above the fray, good writers to do justice to the blurbs, and around long enough to have a sense of how to balance what's available to run on the main page. I'd rather make notifications first but honestly don't know when I'll get to it. Bencherlite, I know, keeps this page on watch and I assume he'll see this post. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I obviously agreed, which is why I refactored it several hours before you left your comment. I do not consider you an enemy, we do not have interests in common so we rarely review each other's articles. I actually like how much you care about prose. And you may misunderstand, my reference to an enemies list is a reference to Raul's ill-advised comments regarding myself and others on his talk page, and that of others.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Factions are always created by issues that haven't found a good solution. If factionalism is perceived as a problem, I suggest the underlying issues be looked into. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
@Truthkeeper, thank you for your kind words. I've already suggested a name or two to Raul by email, and I'm sure others will have done so too, so hopefully there will be more suitable possibilities than me! I won't say any more than that here because Raul asked for suggestions / volunteers by email rather than on wiki, and I don't think that I should risk turning this into hustings (whether for me or for others) for the position. BencherliteTalk 14:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have my short list. I hope to make two TFAR delegate appointments in the very near future. Once that's done, I'm going to wait and see what happens with the lead time. Raul654 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo

Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo is listed in pending requests for 17 December. That date of first airing seems the better date than Christmas Day, to me and others. I think it was almost a mistake to request it here for the 25th, given the pending request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can get Hawkeye7 to change his request, but you can't unilaterally change it unless the conditions laid out in the instructions are met. My bigger question is whether folks weighing in there understand the September 17 air date and are meaning to refer to that 17 (September or December). I also oppose it for December 17, btw (anything within a week of Christmas is my oppose). I'm not sure why "Pending requests" is relevant to anything on that TFA request-- it's a template that I set up as a courtesy reminder, parking place for things we didn't want to lose sight ot, and it appears that it is being used as if something is somehow set in stone. Side note-- when I set it up, it was merely something on the talk page-- now the main page here is unnecessarily cluttered, and I'm not sure why that template is cluttering the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The original airdate is December 17, I don't know where you both pulled September from. To be frank, it has date relevance on both the 17th and 25th of December only, and I would oppose any date that's meant to be a compromise with the class of complainers who will never actually take part in these main page discussions but throw stones afterwards. EDIT: Surely the 17th is more than a week before the 25th, too, unless I missed something. GRAPPLE X 03:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that info, Grapple X .... that will learn me not to believe everything I read :) I got it from here; it is on the page now, has been for a while, no one has corrected it-- so now we've a mess. If in fact the original airdate is Dec 17, not Sep 17 as Gerda stated, then I see reason to support the Dec 17 date after all. Will have to go fix all that now. Ugh. Gerda, please strike your September 17 date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe things have changed, but it used to be that the Potential upcoming requests box was purely advisory, and the articles listed were more often not run. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Judging by Gerda's edit summary in the cited diff, it seems that "September" was a typographical error for "December".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It was, and I marked it as such. - Back to the original question, if the rules are in the way of making sense - in this case move the nomination from a date many people opposed to one that (so far) few people opposed - let's change them. I will not touch this nomination but watch when it will be moved to 17 December. - If the rules are so important, I wonder why nobody reverted the nomination for 25 Dec as still not within the timeframe of one month ahead. Needless to say, that's another limitation I would like to see disappear ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Because it says: November 28 to December 28 (only up to December 18 if the entry would have five or more points) It only has 3 points, so 25 December is within the time frame. :p Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, please try to understand the instructions before advocating to change them. It is within the time frame from the last scheduled; the reason it's there is so that the page doesn't grow to the unmanageable 200 entries that it used to have before we limited the time frame. And as to changing the date to what is supported/opposed "so far", we have the 48-hour rule so that ample editors have time to weigh in before people start reverting things-- it's still a month away, so there is no urgency. Should consensus emerge, there is plenty of time still to change it to the 17th-- one goal of this, and every Wikipedia page, is to allow time for consensus to form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Page is no longer functioning

Instructions are explicit, if lengthy, yet this page is failing to serve the delegates because consensus-based instructions are ignored.

  1. One nomination at a time, yet we have a handful of nominators putting up multiple.
  2. Do NOT use the page for discussion of FAs that have already been TFA (open a talk discussion, consult the delegates, instructions are clear on this matter), and yet we have had two instances this month of folks nominating FAs that have already run TFA, and then re-instating them when removed.
  3. We allow 48 hours for discussion before removal-- also breached this week.
  4. Instructions about layout, blurb size, etc are routinely ignored, resulting in blurbs that would have to be rewritten by delegates anyway.
  5. Points are routinely wrong and point tallies are not updated (why are tallies on the page ?).
  6. The ten nomination page size is not utilized; there's no reason to have it. One nominator is filling it up; the broader community isn't using it. So, we don't need ten non-specific date slots.

In other words, the community that is participating here is not participating in a way that leads to constructive scheduling or respecting consensus-based processes so that TFA can be an orderly process, and it's probably time to modify the page so that it can be useful to delegates who schedule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You were not here for the last months, no was the director, we improvised, and it worked, at least for September, ask the scheduler, and look at the result. There are no slots for dates, up to ten are used as needed. I am waiting for several weeks now to get an answer to the question what the points are good for, it became the perennial question. Articles can be discussed parallel without competition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What the points are used for is not a perennial question. It can't be when you are the *only* person who keeps asking it. And you've been answered several times on this very page.

Morever, what Sandy said above is exactly correct - the rules for this page are being ignored, and that has to stop. I have removed periodic table from the list, and I've set the page back to *two* non-specific nominations, since it was patently obvious that the rest were not being used. Raul654 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple

This continues the above, comment by you, Raul. My English is limited, so I suggest to handle questions one at a time, and to keep it simple and concrete, seeking consensus.

Points

Let's look at the example of December 1, Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil. She should appear some day, do we agree? As unfortunately we can't say much more about her than that she is of noble birth, I suggested her for her birthday. You can schedule her that day or not. If not I will try again next year. What do you need points for. Isn't it more important for balance that not many female faces were shown recently, a fact the points don't show? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she should appear some day. Yes, she probably will appear one day, whether on her birthday or on some unrelated date doesn't really matter. Yes, points are important as everyone keeps telling you. Yes, it is important to show a diversity of subjects and the schedulers are well aware of that, but as we don't have many articles about women at FA standard that have not already appeared on the main page there's a limit to what they can do. I think this was last discussed a couple of years ago and there was no consensus for adding further components to the points system to deal with diversity issues. BencherliteTalk 09:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
"Get the point" is a cute header for your link to "disruptive editing" ;) - I asked Raul about this specific case, trying to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you need points for. - points are used to prioritize nominations on this page. If there are too many for this page, they are used to decide which ones get removed.
Isn't it more important for balance that not many female faces were shown recently, a fact the points don't show? - as Bencherlite said, that was discussed and there was no consensus on that. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, but I knew that much. "Too many": if five/ten requests are permitted, as we had, you rarely will have too many, more can be seen in context, with a better perspective on the actual balance. "Female" - I only wanted to express that an argument in prose can point at the detail that needs consideration better than a number of points which combines several aspects, loosing the single relevance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table

Can periodic table be a TFA? It was nominated for refreshing brilliant prose in 2004, put on the Main Page shortly afterwards, and then demoted in an FAR the next year. However, this year (2012) it was completely rewritten and was promoted as an FA recently. I know that articles shouldn't appear on the main page twice, but this seems more borderline (and would get 7 or 8 points, depending on who nominates it). Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Standard form of the periodic table

A periodic table is a tabular display of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations, and recurring chemical properties. Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number (number of protons). The standard form of table comprises an 18 × 7 grid or main body of elements, positioned above a smaller double row of elements. The table can also be deconstructed into four rectangular blocks: the s-block to the left, the p-block to the right, the d-block in the middle, and the f-block below that. The rows of the table are called periods; the columns of the s-, d-, and p-blocks are called groups, with some of these having trivial names such as the halogens or the noble gases. Since, by definition, a periodic table incorporates recurring trends, any such table can be used to derive relationships between the properties of the elements and predict the properties of new, yet to be discovered or synthesized, elements. As a result, a periodic table—whether in the standard form or some other variant—provides a useful framework for analyzing chemical behavior, and such tables are widely use in chemistry and other sciences. (Full article...)

It would look like this, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Admittedly, I may be slightly biased because I was one of the primary contributors to this article, but 2004 was a long time ago (probably before most of us even contributed), and Wikipedia as a whole was very different back then. Since things have changed so much, it would be great if we could have this as TFA again. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Besides, the content of the article has changed a lot, and the article is on the whole much more informative now. Also, it covers a very important subject. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I also think we should rethink our approach here, especially regarding FFAs. Abuses can be met with opposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There are issues of fairness both ways, of course. On the one hand, when we have 1,331 articles that have yet to appear once on the main page, why should the 3,180 articles that have done so appear again, absent exceptional reasons? On the other, if a new team of editors has reworked an article to FA standards and the article appeared years ago, does it hurt every once in a while to break the "once and only once" rule? To emphasise the exceptional nature of such cases, and to prevent it being "open season" at TFAR for repeat TFA requests, I wonder whether some or all of the following might be prerequisites: (1) an FFA; (2) brought back to FA standards by editors uninvolved in the first FAC; (3) a vital article or core topic (since these will be the most "encyclopaedic" articles and it will rarely hurt to run them twice, whereas a second TFA slot for a cartoon or a video game may have less to commend it); (4) X years since the last appearance as TFA, where X is suitably large. As it happens, Periodic table would pass all of those tests, so I'd be inclined to support this appearing, even as a "one-off" exception, but perhaps there is scope for more rethinking of the approach, either in terms of rules or in terms of expressions of view from the community given to the scheduler(s) to inform the use of their discretion in selection. BencherliteTalk 09:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Bencherlite, please explain the contradiction between your statement above and what you said on November 10 about another article appearing twice. Also, please explain "This is (1) a vital article rather than pop fluff, ... " Do you discriminate articles that may appear TFA based on the content area? What do you mean by "pop fluff"? Hopefully you're aware that an FA is an FA, and it's a volunteer project. Why are you applying two different standards in one month to two articles ? Do you appreciate the need for variety on the mainpage, or do you assign more value to a scientific article like Periodic Table than a pop culture article (which are quite often very widely read when on the main page?) Are you really willing to create two classes of writers and articles ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think he just means that this article is vital. (I'm obviously biased.) Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's not all he said: he specifically called out "pop fluff", and he also said it should be eligible to re-run since it ran in 2004 and has been re-worked by new editors. Yet Sesame Street, which ran in 2006, and has been re-worked by new editors, is oppposed by Bencherlite and Gerda. There are several contradictions here. Further, vital articles by definition get high page views and don't really need to appear on the main page to be showcased. Example. I'm confused about the two sets of standards here-- it's a bad direction for TFA to head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in reading my reply to SandyGeorgia's request for an explanation for the difference between my stance on Sesame Street and periodic table, and whether I discriminate between TFAs based on content area, or whether I was unaware that this is a volunteer project, or whether I do not appreciate the need for variety on the main page, or whether I am trying to create two classes of writers and articles, then you will find my answer here on her talk page. It didn't seem appropriate to clutter this talk page with it given the changes that have taken place here and overleaf since I last logged in about 28/29 hours ago. BencherliteTalk 23:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I would set the bar a little lower than VA or CT. I would say widely covered should be sufficient. If it has 20 other-wiki articles, then it's a subject of interest. Alternatively, if we retain the point system, a minimum point value, say four or five, would be a good reason to justify an exception. In addition to being a FFA brought in by a fresh team. Or a major event regarding the subject, for example I plan to ask for an exception for Gough Whitlam's funeral, if and when (he's 96). Or, alternatively, his 100th birthday, I think he would be the first modern head of government to reach his 100th birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's another article that matches the description: J. Robert Oppenheimer. It is a widely covered VA that was TFA back in April 2005. It was demoted in April 2007 but promoted again after a lot of work in March 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd broadly support the relaxing of the restriction for articles with compelling reasons, like most of those mention here, but am not sure you could leglistlate for it. You would hope that common sence would be enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should legislate for it. I think each time should be a community discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Uh, thanks for repeating what I just said. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, we agree :)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I expressed myself badly, I can see how it might have seemed otherwise. But yeah, on this we do :) Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
So, unless anyone has any objections within the next 48 hours or so, I will nominate this article to be TFA again. I'll definitely link to this discussion in the request. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, we don't run articles twice without very broad discussion (certainly nothing like a few editors agreeing), and if the community really wants to have more input into this page, the community should be responsible in how that is exercised. Opening up the possibility of any TFA running twice-- when there are so many that haven't run once-- is not where we should be. Further, flaunting the setup of the page which was established by consensus is not a good thing. Further, calculating points as if this article had not already run is disingenous ... if another article comes along that hasn't run, it is worth more, so even if we were to go this way (which I doubt we will), there would be a large deduction for already-runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this would be the first time an FA has been on the main page twice. I seem to recall one earlier this year, although I can't remember which it was ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Transit of Venus, also Barack Obama, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes! In 2011, an article nearly ran twice due to a name confusion. (Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 14#Featured Articles that have appeared on the Main Page more than once) I note Raul's response: The no-repeating thing is a rule I've imposed on myself. I reserve the right to wave it at any time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Nick Drake has also run twice, due to the soapbox blackout we had. GRAPPLE X 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda, Transit of Venus was the one I was thinking of. I may be alone in this, but I've never felt that TFA was any kind of a reward, quite the opposite really. All you can expect on TFA day is a load of vandalism and if you're very, very lucky maybe one minor punctuation correction. What I'm trying to say is that TFA ought not to be a reward for writers, but something interesting for readers. Please don't let's go down the same dark hole that DYK has gone down. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not alone. I think of it as a necessary evil that goes along with writing an article and then going through a FAC. It's just something that needs to be endured and then the mess cleaned afterward, but not anything I'd seek out - well I did one time, but I thought for a good reason. I certainly don't think of it as a reward. But perhaps only a few of us think that way. It this is becoming a "rewards" page - then, yes, trouble could be brewing. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears so. Along with the impression that we have two classes of editors and articles, where science is more important than culture. De-motivating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Science more important than culture? I don't get that at all. What I do get is that the state of play with science topics changes far more rapidly than it does with say literature topics. And I repeat, what should be important is what the readers might want to see, not dubious rewards for FA writers. If the main page is supposed to be an awards ceremony for DYKs and FAs then we've gone horribly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus was a once-in-our-lifetimes event, Obama/McCain was well discussed and Raul made it clear it was an exception (both of these were extremely rare circumstances), and Nick Drake was run as a repeat on a day when the encyclopedia was blacked out and no one would see the TFA. We have no such circumstance here, and no reason to begin re-running routine articles when there are hundreds of TFAs that haven't run. Curiously, both Gerda and Bencherlite opposed Sesame Street running twice-- only a few weeks ago. [7] It leaves the appearance that what applies to science does not apply to culture articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Transits of Venus happen about twice a century, and US presidential elections only occur every four years (which was probably why it was opposed this year).
I think the main reason is not whether the article is about science or popular culture, but rather the fact that this happens to be a vital article. (I'm obviously biased.) Double sharp (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Merit should matter more than points, technicalities and strict guidelines. This is an IAR situation if ever I saw one here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
And if every editor who Wanted Their Article at TFA To Heck With The Rules decides to IAR (that is, all 1,340 of them), what purpose will this page serve? It will end up back where it was before we put the process in place: 200 editors clamoring for their day. Those who don't know history ... yes, let's all IAR and see how the idea of letting the community run this page works out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Not every editor will be bringing the very foundaton of known science as an article though will they? I said IAR for this article, not every single article that's ever been a TFA, that's a lame strawman IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It certainly ought to be a factor, and I'd be very happy to give up the place of any of the FAs I've written that have yet to appear on the main page to this article. How can we possibly square the circle of a main page appearance being a reward with a concern for the readers? Isn't that exactly where DYK went wrong? Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Uh, well, DYK has gone wrong in more ways than one can count. Bigger concern is that it doesn't appear that the community has matured enough to be able to run this page, because all I'm seeing here is a mob rule, disorder, "I want my TFA, to heck with the process", and disregard for instructions and consensus. Time to re-simplify the page, since the instructions and processes are being disregarded in more ways than one... and that does remind one of DYK. Data, just did a rough count, we have at least 1,350 FAs that have not run at TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    "Disregard for instructions and consensus?" If StringTheory and I had really wanted to disregard them, I wouldn't have opened this discussion so that a consensus could be obtained either way and would have nominated the article immediately. The fact that I didn't do that and chose to let a discussion happen shows that I didn't disregard the instructions. Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Mob rule? Really? That's just alarmist hyperbole IMO. 9 years X 365 days = 3,285 days/TFA opportunities. According to this page, we currently have 3,745 FAs. Also, one might assume that a few of the less than 1,350 FAs that have not appeared passed FAC pre-2004, which I think we can all agree would not represent the best of Wikipedia in 2012. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You're right, mob rule was over the top ... Perhaps a reaciton to reading hyperbole like "Strip search" from you in other FA discussions ... most FA writers weren't even aware of this discussion and there certainly has been no mob ... struck, corrected. Dweller already did that analysis ... there are very few older FAs that haven't run-- we have many new FAs that have not run. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarification - this comment was probably poorly worded. What I meant is that we should reach consensus on the page (as was done for Sesame Street) without pulling the nom, and that if this becomes a regular occurrence then consider doing something about the points. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Two classes of FA articles: Re the discussion above that there shouldn't be two classes of FAs. Isn't there already two classes of FAs: FAs that can appear on the main page and FAs that can't e.g. The Story of Miss Moppet (which I stupidly blundered into nominating - not knowing that it can't be TFA though listed as a FA)? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The policy for second-time nominations is the same now as it has always been - they are not permitted on this page. If there's a request that deviates from the established norm (two on one day, or for a re-feature) this page is not the appropriate forum. It needs to be made specifically to me, along with a solid justification for why it should happen. I'll decide them on a case-by-case basis. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You heard the man...stop that discussion. Yomanganitalk 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

At some point we will need to introduce a cutoff on this. I appreciate that we could first spend the next eleven thousand years bringing every article currently on the pedia up to FA standard and putting it on the main page, but in practice there are many articles which no-one cares enough about to get them to FA standard. So eventually we will need to change the rule to "No article shall be TFA twice within X years". The only question is what value to put on X. I suspect that few would argue to set X higher than 100 or less than 10, the question is where do we go in between those numbers? My assumption is that few readers will notice and fewer still would mind if we set the rule at "No article shall be TFA twice within fifteen years". That would give us a few years before we started having a trickle of articles where their former foray onto the main page was now moot. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the logic, but as long as the supply of new FAs is maintained the preference for giving these their day in the sun is likely to keep the policy the same, at least for our lifetimes. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_14&oldid=1196563295"