Bencherlite (talk | contribs) →Christmas: any other thoughts? |
Tazerdadog (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
::::::There was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=523443042#Periodic_table discussion], I would conclude the same, that StringTheory11 wants to take care of it, [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
::::::There was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=523443042#Periodic_table discussion], I would conclude the same, that StringTheory11 wants to take care of it, [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{done}}; the article is now up! [[User:StringTheory11|StringTheory11]] ([[User talk:StringTheory11|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/StringTheory11|c]]) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::{{done}}; the article is now up! [[User:StringTheory11|StringTheory11]] ([[User talk:StringTheory11|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/StringTheory11|c]]) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
Personally I would favor just assigning a -5(or so) point value every time an article has been TFA in the past, and then saying open season. However, as Raul has mentioned, this is all moot. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 03:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== I have a dream == |
== I have a dream == |
Revision as of 03:48, 7 December 2012
The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from July 1 to July 31. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection.
Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns.
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Article | Reason | Primary author(s) | Added by (if different) |
early July | Alpine ibex | Why | LittleJerry | Dank |
July 1 | Flag of Canada | Why | Gary | Dank |
July 3 | Maple syrup | Why | Nikkimaria | Dank |
July 4 | Statue of Liberty | Why | Wehwalt | Dank and Wehwalt |
July 18 | John Glenn | Why | Hawkeye7, Kees08 | Dank |
July 21 | Ernest Hemingway | Why | Victoriaearle | Dank |
August 10 | Operation Boomerang | Why | Nick-D | Harizotoh9 |
August 11 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T2 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 12 | Worlds (Porter Robinson album) | Why | Skyshifter, TechnoSquirrel69 | Skyshifter |
August 16 | Abu Nidal | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
August 19 | Battle of Winwick | Why | Gog the Mild | |
August 25 | 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger (rerun, first TFA was August 15, 2016) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 26 | Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 | Why | Gog the Mild | |
August 30 | Segundo Romance | Why | Erick | Harizotoh9 |
August 31 | Rachelle Ann Go | Why | Pseud 14 | |
September | Avenue Range Station massacre | Why (rerun, first TFA was September 3, 2018) | Peacemaker67 | |
September 6 | Liz Truss | Why | Tim O'Doherty | Sheila1988 ... but see below, July 26, 2025 |
September 13 | Amarte Es un Placer (album) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 16 | 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (rerun, first TFA was April 23, 2014) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
September 21 | Artur Phleps | Why (rerun, first TFA was November 29, 2013) | Peacemaker67 | |
October | Dobroslav Jevđević | Why (re-run, first TFA was March 9, 2013) | Peacemaker67 | |
October 1 | The Founding Ceremony of the Nation | Why | Wehwalt | |
October 4 | Olmec colossal heads | Why | Simon Burchell | Dank |
October 11 | Funerary art | Why | Johnbod | Dank |
October 14 | Brandenburg-class battleship | Why | Parsecboy | Parsecboy and Dank |
October 15 | Battle of Glasgow, Missouri | Why | HF | |
October 17 | 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) (re-run, first TFA was June 19, 2014) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
October 19 | "Bad Romance" | Why | FrB.TG | |
October 21 | Takin' It Back | Why | MaranoFan | |
October 22 | The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes | Why | Your Power, ZooBlazer | |
October 25 | Fusō-class battleship | Why | Sturmvogel_66 and Dank | Peacemaker67 |
October 25 | Katy Perry | Why | SNUGGUMS | 750h+ |
October 29 | 1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game | Why | PCN02WPS | |
October 30 | Cucurbita | Why | Sminthopsis84 and Chiswick Chap | Dank |
October 31 | The Smashing Pumpkins | Why | WesleyDodds | Dank |
November | Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
November 3 | 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election | Why | Elli | |
November 6 | Russian battleship Poltava (1894) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 11 | Mells War Memorial | Why | HJ Mitchell | Ham II |
November 17 | SMS Friedrich Carl | Why | Parsecboy | Peacemaker67 |
November 18 | Donkey Kong Country | Why | TheJoebro64, Jaguar | TheJoebro64 |
November 21 | MLS Cup 1999 | Why | SounderBruce | |
November 22 | Donkey Kong 64 | Why | czar | |
November 27 | Interstate 182 | Why | SounderBruce | |
November 28 | Battle of Cane Hill | Why | Hog Farm | |
December 3 | PlayStation (console) | Why | Jaguar | Dank |
December 13 | Taylor Swift | Why (rerun, first TFA was August 23, 2019) | Ronherry | FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS |
December 19 | SMS Niobe | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
December 20 | Sonic the Hedgehog 2 | Why | TheJoebro64 | Sheila1988 |
December 25 | A Very Trainor Christmas | Why | MaranoFan | Sheila1988 |
2025: | ||||
January 8 | Elvis Presley | Why | PL290, DocKino, Rikstar | Dank |
January 9 | Title (album) | Why | MaranoFan | |
January 22 | Caitlin Clark | Why | Sportzeditz | Dank |
January 27 | The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
January 29 | Dominik Hašek | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
March 18 | Edward the Martyr | Why | Amitchell125 | Sheila1988 |
March 26 | Pierre Boulez | Why | Dmass | Sheila1988 |
April 12 | Dolly de Leon | Why | Pseud 14 | |
April 25 | 1925 FA Cup Final | Why | Kosack | Dank |
May | 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
May 5 | Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
June 1 | Total Recall (1990 film) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 8 | Barbara Bush | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 26 | Donkey Kong Land | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 29 | Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
July 7 | Gustav Mahler | Why | Brianboulton | Dank |
July 7 | Empire of the Sultans | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
July 8 | Edward the Martyr | Why | Dudley Miles | Harizotoh9 |
July 14 | William Hanna | Why | Rlevse | Dank |
July 26 | Liz Truss | Why | Tim O'Doherty | Tim O'Doherty and Dank |
July 31 | Battle of Warsaw (1705) | Why | Imonoz | Harizotoh9 |
August 23 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 30 | Late Registration | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
August 31 | Japanese battleship Yamato | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 5 | Peter Sellers | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 6 | Hurricane Ophelia (2005) | Why | Cyclonebiskit | Harizotoh9 |
September 9 | Animaniacs | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 30 or October 1 | Hoover Dam | Why | NortyNort, Wehwalt | Dank |
October 1 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
October 3 | Spaghetti House siege | Why | SchroCat | Dank |
October 10 | Tragic Kingdom | Why | EA Swyer | Harizotoh9 |
October 16 | Angela Lansbury | Why | Midnightblueowl | MisawaSakura |
October 18 | Royal Artillery Memorial | Why | HJ Mitchell | Ham II |
November 1 | Matanikau Offensive | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 20 | Nuremberg trials | Why | buidhe | harizotoh9 |
December 25 | Ho Ho Ho (album) | Why | harizotoh9 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Seeming source of the problem
- The source of the problem seems to be that Raul stopped editing over two months ago, and Dabomb, the delegate, has limited time. TFA's were not being selected until an hour or less before their appearance on the main page, and primary authors weren't being notified in time to clean up the article, and sometimes not notified at all. There was much complaining from FA editors. Poor articles, often old, no longer up to par with current FAC requirements and with maintenance tags were appearing as TFAs.
- Enough people weren't willing to vet articles, calculate points and nominate articles so that Dabomb did not have a decent selection and had to pick unvetted article at the last minute from those that hadn't appeared on the main page. (Points are often calculated inaccurately, so Dabomb would have to check the points even if the nominator provided them.) Gerda's solution was an attempt to address this problem, since so many are unwilling to nominate articles and calculate points.
- Having just checked the polar expedition articles and the star articles to determine their frequency of appearance this year, it is a job to figure out when the sequence of the last appearances, never mind the other point requirements (which I didn't check and would be hard to do - like is this the main editor's first appearance on the main page, anniversaries, geographical over representation and such.) I found the articles were "bunched" and certain topics (polar expeditions) were over selected under the "old" system.
- The "points" are not well understood. Birthdays are often used for points, which Raul specifically says do not count. Further, as Raul says, the FA categories are not the same as categories used for TFA selection, such as a biography of a film director is not the same category as a review of the film, so each were not prevented from appearing near each other. Also, some categories pertain only to certain countries and exclude others. Raul is no longer around to clarify these misunderstanding such as occurred with the Stephen Crane nomination. Thus there are unresolved arguments about what the individual "points" mean.
- Gerda's suggestions for increasing the slots for article suggestions alleviated this problem and gave Dabomb more to select from, preventing the last minute choices and the many complaints. Gerda's solution at least provides Dabomb with some assistance, and I am not aware that he has complained. Rather, his job seems more manageable now.
- If someone has a better solution, please offer it - especially since some FA editors are unwilling to nominate articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Don't forget, there is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency just in case too. We could put a couple more in there too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just one comment for now: Mathew, do you have a link or diff for Raul saying that birthdays don't count? My understanding of the workings of this page is that birthdays count but anniversaries of death usually do not. See Raul's comment at the nomination of John Lennon for December 8, 2010: "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." BencherliteTalk 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry my wording was too casual, Bencherlite. Recently someone gave points to feature Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil for December 1 because she was born on December 1, 1831. However, Raul has said in his "Notes" regarding date relevance: "Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event." As I interpret Raul's wording from that sentence and some of his other comments, if a subject was born on November 5, for example, November 5 would not be enough of a date relevance as it is not a specific "anniversary" according to the way Raul defines anniversaries. Only an "anniversary" of that birth would count, e.g. 25th anniversary or some such. Also, how much "significant coverage" of a birth must be given in the article? e.g. more than the usual details about the birth? (Hope I'm wording this clearly - this is as I understand Raul's wordings made at various places.) The example you give regarding Lennon seems to be because the date was an anniversary of his death, IMO. - although the link also quotes User:Iridescent as saying: "I know Raul dislikes death anniversaries", the quote from Raul is "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." so I'm not clear what anniversaries are ok, since the "death" anniversary dislike is not in the point rules. And it seems to me that there would be very few equally notable births. Is there a statement by Raul clarifying the needed notability of a birth or death to count besides widely covered assassinations of extremely famous people? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hunting through the TFAR archives, I found this discussion from 2009 which clearly worked on the basis that birthdays would count as a point bonus; the discussion was formalised a couple of threads later on the same page, with many of the same participants (including me!) - so I think I've established to my satisfaction that my memory is not at fault. A birthday, or anniversary of birthday, is still an "anniversary" even if it is not divisible neatly by 5 or 10. My recollection is that the "death date anniversary" was often looked as a weak claim to an extra point, which is why Raul made a point of saying that Lennon's death was noticeable. Diffs to support that recollection will be harder to find since it will be mostly in the page history of the discussions, which aren't archived. However, Iridescent's comment and Raul's reply are good evidence of the point, I think. Come to think of it, Wehwalt has a lot of experience in the points system so he might be able to help my recollections... BencherliteTalk 14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry my wording was too casual, Bencherlite. Recently someone gave points to feature Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil for December 1 because she was born on December 1, 1831. However, Raul has said in his "Notes" regarding date relevance: "Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event." As I interpret Raul's wording from that sentence and some of his other comments, if a subject was born on November 5, for example, November 5 would not be enough of a date relevance as it is not a specific "anniversary" according to the way Raul defines anniversaries. Only an "anniversary" of that birth would count, e.g. 25th anniversary or some such. Also, how much "significant coverage" of a birth must be given in the article? e.g. more than the usual details about the birth? (Hope I'm wording this clearly - this is as I understand Raul's wordings made at various places.) The example you give regarding Lennon seems to be because the date was an anniversary of his death, IMO. - although the link also quotes User:Iridescent as saying: "I know Raul dislikes death anniversaries", the quote from Raul is "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." so I'm not clear what anniversaries are ok, since the "death" anniversary dislike is not in the point rules. And it seems to me that there would be very few equally notable births. Is there a statement by Raul clarifying the needed notability of a birth or death to count besides widely covered assassinations of extremely famous people? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should hear from Dabomb how useful the points are to him. The point system is complicated and not intuitive. If it isn't that useful to Dabomb, we might want to simplify or scrap it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. I was dubious about the changes this summer, but have to say they don't seemed to have caused problems, except that I think this second group of factors are tending to be forgotten. Gerda in particular is doing fine work, but seems heedless of these issues, and frankly unreliable in her assessment of "similarity". This I think ultimately places more work on others, especially Dabomb, & I'd be interested to hear how he feels about the current situation, and officially abolishing the points system. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's my problem of not seeing similarities if a writer is chosen (for a valid reason) just before another one (Stephen Crane) was requested, a medieaval bishop is scheduled although a different one was on TFAR for a week later, or - today - a pilot when there is one waiting in the pending list for 4 Dec. It tells me that Dabomb should not handle those things alone, it seems too much for him. I suggested that several others should have the right to schedule, because I think it's too much for any given person. As of today, we are looking ahead just 2 days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was making the simple point that you are still doing nominations without attempting to cover the "points" issues such as similar articles in any way. I wasn't thinking of particular examples, though if you want to go there your belief that the Lost operas of Monteverdi was unique and not similar to to other articles on opera sticks in the mind. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I will not calculate points until I get an answer who needs them for what. I am trying to learn. Lost operas are no operas, no? We don't have most of their music, it's a completely different article content than the usual Tosca or whatever, - points will not be able to do justice to it. - Forget my complaints about only two days ahead, - Dabomb (not Raul) scheduled a few more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was making the simple point that you are still doing nominations without attempting to cover the "points" issues such as similar articles in any way. I wasn't thinking of particular examples, though if you want to go there your belief that the Lost operas of Monteverdi was unique and not similar to to other articles on opera sticks in the mind. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's my problem of not seeing similarities if a writer is chosen (for a valid reason) just before another one (Stephen Crane) was requested, a medieaval bishop is scheduled although a different one was on TFAR for a week later, or - today - a pilot when there is one waiting in the pending list for 4 Dec. It tells me that Dabomb should not handle those things alone, it seems too much for him. I suggested that several others should have the right to schedule, because I think it's too much for any given person. As of today, we are looking ahead just 2 days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, at one time there was intense competition for main page slots. However, that has subsided.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Gerda is right I think. One choice was a book review, the other a biography of a writer - not the same according to my understanding of Raul's rules. However, long, discursive arguments on the nomination page are discouraging. IMO Gerda was a breath of fresh air, and for a while I was enthusiastic about helping out with the TFA page, rewriting blurbs, looking for FA nominations etc., but apparently its going back to the same old way. I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out. (Fortunately two of my choices got on the main page before the breath of fresh air was closed down.) It was fun while it lasted. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nice to hear that I am right, but it was a bit different: the similarity between book and writer was accepted as not significant, but then Ian Fleming came suddenly (for the new 007 film what I called a valid reason), and that made it writer next to writer, similarity accepted. I like to hear even more that I am like a breath of fresh air, thank you! I am missing so many supportive friends that I would really like to have your support continued, Mathew, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Mathew, here's the simple truth. I opposed Stephen Crane so as to avoid another fun event like this one that Maria had to endure. She almost left over it, and if researching and writing good pages is to met with that kind of crap when it runs on the front page, I think that any editor should be shielded from having to go through it more than once in a single month. Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism to stop that kind of behavior, so I opposed the nomination (and there were good reasons: the same editor in a short period, another author in the queue, the similarity to the other piece) and sent Maria email to apologize. Can you now please drop the stick? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you (usually followed by Ceoil) will stop posting after every comment I make. Since you are repeating yourself I will repeat myself. Your comment doesn't make sense and is not a "simple turth". The simple truth is the two articles involved were not in the same "category" according to Raul's rules and could have each been run. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Mathew, what two articles are you referring to? Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek or Crane and Ian Fleming? The latter pairing is ultimately why Crane's nomination failed -- after Fleming was nominated, Crane's nom received three or four opposes (including mine) that pointed out that featuring two white male authors on the main page within eight days of one another does not exemplify diversity of subject matter. TK had her personal reasons for opposing Crane's nom, but that's not why the nomination failed -- it was bad timing. I would also like to point out that Crane's nomination should have been removed ages before it was, and then even after it was removed it was accidentally scheduled by Dabomb to appear on November 2nd -- the day after it was nominated for. So, after all of the supporting/opposing and removal from TFAR, it was added to the freaking queue anyway. It's kind of funny, but also fairly annoying. I'm not blaming Dabomb in the least, but obviously there's something wrong with the system if more people can't or simply aren't paying attention. María (yllosubmarine) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - that's what Truthkeeper88's lengthy and repeated objection to my posts on the nomination page addressed. I wasn't involved in anything regarding Ian Fleming, his article didn't enter the thread when I was posting and I wasn't aware of his nomination.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion reminds of my recent comment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- You say there were misunderstandings about Crane's nom, but the only one you can point to is TK comparing Crane to Pilgrim in her oppose rationale (which another user agreed with, btw). Again, that's not why the article wasn't scheduled for TFA -- it wasn't scheduled because of Fleming, which multiple people agreed was too similar to Crane. I don't think this one article failing to appear on the main page is a worthy example of a failed system. The nom was up for ages, and TK's objections were only a smattering of what was wrong with it. Perhaps said objection was merely what you took umbrage at? If so, let it be. María (yllosubmarine) 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- That was the one I was referring to. Truthkeeper posted other lengthy links on the same subject. I just gave you an example. There was also the horrible ugliness over my Miss Moppet nomination, all because I didn't know about the secret list of FAs that can't ever be on the main page. (That's still not been settled, though I took the heat from Truthkeeper and Ceoil.) From that time on TK put length posts after all my comments. Ceoil supported Truthkeeper and accused me of a conspiracy against another editor that I've never hear of. It was an ugly experience for me. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - that's what Truthkeeper88's lengthy and repeated objection to my posts on the nomination page addressed. I wasn't involved in anything regarding Ian Fleming, his article didn't enter the thread when I was posting and I wasn't aware of his nomination.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Mathew, what two articles are you referring to? Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek or Crane and Ian Fleming? The latter pairing is ultimately why Crane's nomination failed -- after Fleming was nominated, Crane's nom received three or four opposes (including mine) that pointed out that featuring two white male authors on the main page within eight days of one another does not exemplify diversity of subject matter. TK had her personal reasons for opposing Crane's nom, but that's not why the nomination failed -- it was bad timing. I would also like to point out that Crane's nomination should have been removed ages before it was, and then even after it was removed it was accidentally scheduled by Dabomb to appear on November 2nd -- the day after it was nominated for. So, after all of the supporting/opposing and removal from TFAR, it was added to the freaking queue anyway. It's kind of funny, but also fairly annoying. I'm not blaming Dabomb in the least, but obviously there's something wrong with the system if more people can't or simply aren't paying attention. María (yllosubmarine) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you (usually followed by Ceoil) will stop posting after every comment I make. Since you are repeating yourself I will repeat myself. Your comment doesn't make sense and is not a "simple turth". The simple truth is the two articles involved were not in the same "category" according to Raul's rules and could have each been run. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Gerda is right I think. One choice was a book review, the other a biography of a writer - not the same according to my understanding of Raul's rules. However, long, discursive arguments on the nomination page are discouraging. IMO Gerda was a breath of fresh air, and for a while I was enthusiastic about helping out with the TFA page, rewriting blurbs, looking for FA nominations etc., but apparently its going back to the same old way. I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out. (Fortunately two of my choices got on the main page before the breath of fresh air was closed down.) It was fun while it lasted. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. I was dubious about the changes this summer, but have to say they don't seemed to have caused problems, except that I think this second group of factors are tending to be forgotten. Gerda in particular is doing fine work, but seems heedless of these issues, and frankly unreliable in her assessment of "similarity". This I think ultimately places more work on others, especially Dabomb, & I'd be interested to hear how he feels about the current situation, and officially abolishing the points system. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
@Mathew. Is saying "I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out." yet another iteration of your "newbie" argument? I'm flabbergasted, because this page requires a minimum of institutional knowledge. Hell, the full instructions are at the top of the page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum after your post above: the Miss Moppet debacle wasn't a picnic for us too. See your own archives: this, this (I didn't know it was possible to frustrate MRG), and this. Many people have tried to help you, and you have either ignored or spurned them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, the instructions are on top. Some people may just follow instructions because they are there. I asked what function the points serve (just one example), and got no good answer. I asked Dabomb, who seems the only one for whom they may be of interest. - The process has changed since the rules were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The process has not changed - all that's changed is the number of slots for nominations. You've been repeatedly told the functions that the points serve e.g. Johnbod's comment above: It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. What's the problem with that explanation? BencherliteTalk 11:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The definition is fine. I may have a problem with English. "...to bring order to competition ..." means to me that we don't need points if there's no competition. When I propose an article I am offering it for discussion and improvement, always ready to accept that others may think it is not good to run it that day or not at all. No competition. I see that as a change in the process, from competition to discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The process has not changed - all that's changed is the number of slots for nominations. You've been repeatedly told the functions that the points serve e.g. Johnbod's comment above: It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. What's the problem with that explanation? BencherliteTalk 11:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, the instructions are on top. Some people may just follow instructions because they are there. I asked what function the points serve (just one example), and got no good answer. I asked Dabomb, who seems the only one for whom they may be of interest. - The process has changed since the rules were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- [3] Re The Story of Miss Moppet was closed at FAR as a Keep. Comment by Hawkeye7: "The article was nominated for TFA by a newbie editor who was completely unaware of the history. This is likely to recur." MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- And? If it's renominated by someone who doesn't know the history, that's why we have delegates and a director (to deal with the situation). Perhaps folks will begin to respect the hard work they do, and that there is some institutional memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 28 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 think he just means that this article is vital. (I'm obviously biased.) Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 22 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 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)
- 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)
- Fair enough, we agree :)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, thanks for repeating what I just said. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Transit of Venus, also Barack Obama, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 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. [4] 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)
- The last time the article in question ran as a TFA was nearly nine years ago! Is that not a factor? Really? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would you like to count how many TFAs ran six, eight, ten years ago? And open the door to all of them? Where would you draw the line? When we have TFAs that have never run. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- Canvassing?. - I have been railed-on more than once for canvassing because I posted "notices" similar to this one. Is this appropriate on Wikipedia or not? What am I missing here? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- What you are missing is perchance a thorough read of WP:CANVASS. Hint: when you were accused of canvassing, you did. Posting a neutral notice to all interested parties is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 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)
How to request
OK, per the section above on the periodic table, I thought I would nominate this article to be TFA. However, I cannot find any instructions on how to nominate the article. I think it would be really helpful for people if there were instructions, as I literally have no idea what I am supposed to do right now. If someone could nominate the article for me, I would be grateful. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are the lengthy instructions at the top of the page not enough? That's not sarcasm - a lot of people have tried to make a complicated process as comprehensible as possible, and if people aren't understanding it they need to be improved. Mogism (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I read the instructions, but nowhere does it say how to nominate it. It very comprehensively covers the criteria, but I can't find anywhere where it says something like "to nominate an article, go to Wikipedia:Sandbox", or "edit section A, add a blurb about the article, and explain why it should be TFA". StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- This diff might help. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or tell me, I am not afraid to make mistakes ;) which article for when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article is Periodic table, and would presumably (am I right, StringTheory11?) be for a non-specific date slot. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- There was a discussion, I would conclude the same, that StringTheory11 wants to take care of it, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done; the article is now up! StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- There was a discussion, I would conclude the same, that StringTheory11 wants to take care of it, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article is Periodic table, and would presumably (am I right, StringTheory11?) be for a non-specific date slot. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or tell me, I am not afraid to make mistakes ;) which article for when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- This diff might help. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I read the instructions, but nowhere does it say how to nominate it. It very comprehensively covers the criteria, but I can't find anywhere where it says something like "to nominate an article, go to Wikipedia:Sandbox", or "edit section A, add a blurb about the article, and explain why it should be TFA". StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally I would favor just assigning a -5(or so) point value every time an article has been TFA in the past, and then saying open season. However, as Raul has mentioned, this is all moot. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a dream
User G suggests an article for a day.
- The author and User B trim the blurb.
- User P looks at the referencing.
- User R improves it.
- User T improves the prose.
- User N finds a better picture.
- User S finds that a similar article was run shortly before.
- We park it for later, but have it ready then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let's get real. I invite that - before coming here - suggestions are made on WP:QAI/TFA, to be discussed, improved and timed in collaboration. At present, that page holds the suggestions that were rejected here for different reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 3 December 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.
- One nomination at a time, yet we have a handful of nominators putting up multiple.
- 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.
- We allow 48 hours for discussion before removal-- also breached this week.
- Instructions about layout, blurb size, etc are routinely ignored, resulting in blurbs that would have to be rewritten by delegates anyway.
- Points are routinely wrong and point tallies are not updated (why are tallies on the page ?).
- 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)
Template with potential upcoming requests
I noticed that the template was just removed from the request page, but is still present on this talk page (and linked from the instructions on the request page). Personally, I like to see the upcoming requests, and would prefer the template to be on the main request page rather than here on the talk page (I don't think it needs to be transcluded in both places). Seeing potential upcoming requests allows people who want to make a request, or are considering whether to vote for or against a request, to see what similar articles might be requested soon. I would like the template to be on the request page since then everything I want to see related to that page is in one place. However, since I don't actually vote for or against requests very often, I thought I would ask here whether other people would prefer that template to be on the request page. Calathan (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly think it's more convenient, for purposes of checking dates, removing outdated entries, so forth. I didn't catch why it was removed?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I removed it because it was already linked in the instructions that indicated it was on talk and clutters the page and isn't used by delegates. If the delegates want it, can it at least be collapsed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not only useful for the delegates, but for everybody who considers a request. I will remember where still to find it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone add a hide/show collapse so it doesn't cause a full page scroll before we get to important info on an already cluttered page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think the page is remarkable uncluttered at the moment, and the "pending requests" box is helpful in terms of making decisions on a particular nom vis-a-vis about what might be coming in the future. At least I find it so, without having to click to another page. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to add an overflow/scroll button, but even though I originally designed the blooming template, it has become too complex for me to know how to add an overflow scroll button. If someone could make it not take an entire page, it wouldn't bother me on the main page (but then the instructions should be fixed, because it is not a talk page template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not everyone uses a widescreen display. I have one, but my web browser window is set in width to approximate a sheet of paper in the portrait (upright) orientation, not landscape (sideways). On my display, that box in its previous location forced the summary table to a narrower width. Depending on the length of the box, it pushed the start of the nominations quite a ways down the page as well, leaving a lot of blank whitespace below the summary table. Imzadi 1979 → 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- See the overflow settings and scroll button at Template:FCDW/T; would something like that not solve it? I don't know how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- On my display, the template mostly sits in what is otherwise unused white space next to the summary table, and only pushes the nomiations down a little bit. I didn't realize it was causing problems with other display settings. If it isn't easy to get it to be on the request page without messing up the display for some people, then I think it is fine to just leave it on the talk page (though I would still prefer it on the request page if there is a way to get that to work well). Calathan (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- See the overflow settings and scroll button at Template:FCDW/T; would something like that not solve it? I don't know how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not everyone uses a widescreen display. I have one, but my web browser window is set in width to approximate a sheet of paper in the portrait (upright) orientation, not landscape (sideways). On my display, that box in its previous location forced the summary table to a narrower width. Depending on the length of the box, it pushed the start of the nominations quite a ways down the page as well, leaving a lot of blank whitespace below the summary table. Imzadi 1979 → 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to add an overflow/scroll button, but even though I originally designed the blooming template, it has become too complex for me to know how to add an overflow scroll button. If someone could make it not take an entire page, it wouldn't bother me on the main page (but then the instructions should be fixed, because it is not a talk page template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
New TFAR delegates - Bencherlite and Gimmetrow
I have, in consultation with the existing delegates, decided to appoint Bencherlite and Gimmetrow (aka, Gimmetoo) as the new TFAR delegates. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Kewlz. Congrats all — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to the real fun, guys! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to all (and to those who left messages on my talk page) for your good wishes. BencherliteTalk 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Queries
Since we now have four mainpage schedulers, will you all be setting up a centralized page so that we will know who's doing what when and who we should contact in the event of a problem? Will you be dividing the work by day, week, ad hoc, what? The idea that notifications must be done has crept into some discussions (not part of the job IMO); do you all have plans on that score, or if TFAs are assigned well in advance (and the maindate parameter is added to article talk), can we leave that to watchlists? Who is adding maindate? And significantly, will anyone be taking on the task of maintaining this page? The point tallies are never correct, the blurbs are frequently off in various ways, and as of this moment, there is a blurb on the page that should have been removed at least 24 hours ago. I used to check in and correct things as I could, but with four schedulers, do you still want the community to try to update the page, or will you all be doing it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I've scheduled five days and will see if I can do some more in a bit. My goodness, it's a slow process to start with - finding the articles, checking for recent similar ones, checking for deadlinks or other maintenance tags, getting a blurb of a decent length, updating the "recently featured" list, protecting the article... Let's hope I get quicker with practice! To answer your questions: (1) I don't know (2) I don't know (3) I'm quite happy to add maindate= to the talk page as I'll have it open anyway, but the bot does this if I forget, I think; I think I'll leave user notifications to the bot, for reasons of time as much as anything. (4) I don't see that the addition of two TFA delegates means that the community has no role in updating this page, because every little helps. Getting ready to schedule, and then scheduling, five articles has taken me 90 minutes FWIW. BencherliteTalk 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to The Hardest Job on the Wikipedia (where everyone has an opinion :) I'm hoping you all will set up a coordination page, so the community will know who's doing which days, etc ... unless you all plan to do that here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Am I right in thinking that the FAC delegates have, or used to have, a coordination page? BencherliteTalk 14:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Correct -- it was initially in my userspace, but when I resigned, I suggested the new delegates just move it ... I think it ended up in Ucucha's space ... check his subpages. In the case here, though, you might set up a subpage of this page. It would be where the four of you could coordinate schedules, and where the community would know who to contact in the event the time approaches where there is no TFA scheduled, someone wants to request a change, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- PS, what worked for us is to keep delegate comments on the user subpage, with community comments confined to the talk page ... so threaded comments were archived from talk, but delegate recusals, etc are listed on the main user page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Correct -- it was initially in my userspace, but when I resigned, I suggested the new delegates just move it ... I think it ended up in Ucucha's space ... check his subpages. In the case here, though, you might set up a subpage of this page. It would be where the four of you could coordinate schedules, and where the community would know who to contact in the event the time approaches where there is no TFA scheduled, someone wants to request a change, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Am I right in thinking that the FAC delegates have, or used to have, a coordination page? BencherliteTalk 14:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to The Hardest Job on the Wikipedia (where everyone has an opinion :) I'm hoping you all will set up a coordination page, so the community will know who's doing which days, etc ... unless you all plan to do that here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Congratulations Bencherlite! I used to some combing for appropriate articles, checking the state of the article, then the checking for recent similar ones, age of the FA, looking for anniversary dates etc. to get ready for scheduling, check blurb length and copyedit blurbs etc. and did find it quite time consuming, especially the checking for "recent similar". (That's how I found that all of the FA polar articles were scheduled for this year and at least three actually ran, leaving only one, if I remember correctly!) Glad you're aboard to do the work! Five articles in 90 minutes is quite fast I think. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Ace Books
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but Ace Books, which was the first FAC I worked on, has been scheduled for 12/6. It's undoubtedly the weakest of the FAs I've worked on, and I wouldn't have been astonished if someone had taken it to FAR. Is it in good enough shape to run? If there is consensus it's OK, I'll leave it be, but if people here think it needs work perhaps it should come off the TFA schedule. I'll commit to trying to improve it if that happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's short enough, but still an FA. The only issue I see at a (very quick) glance is a bare URL as ref 43. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also, some of those refs could be given more information (publication data, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do a clean up pass. Another question: this is the first time I've had an FA on the main page on a topic that is still in existence. Would it be OK if I emailed the current Ace Books and let them know about it? I might be able to get more sources from them, and they might be willing to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? BencherliteTalk 09:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Go for it, but give the response a critical reading (i.e. avoid PR talk) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? BencherliteTalk 09:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do a clean up pass. Another question: this is the first time I've had an FA on the main page on a topic that is still in existence. Would it be OK if I emailed the current Ace Books and let them know about it? I might be able to get more sources from them, and they might be willing to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also, some of those refs could be given more information (publication data, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are a few things that rather date it to late 2006 or Feb 2007. Principally the section Ace_Books#Editorial_staff, especially the "2007 - to present" bit which is referenced to something retrieved in 2006. My suspicion is that some unreferenced updates may have snuck in. Also "planned for the remainder of the year" seems to be referring to 2006. Also I'm assuming that they only published in American English and mainly for the US market - a little globalisation might be useful here. ϢereSpielChequers 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Christmas
- "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" has been scheduled by me for 17th December, so there are twelve clear days for those who wish to improve the prose further to do so. If anyone has real complaints about it being scheduled, please take them to User talk:Raul654, not here. If he wishes to unschedule it, so be it.
- Any suggestions for 25th December? FYI, very few TFAs on Christmas Day have had a seasonal link or theme, perhaps just 2011, 2009 and 2004(ish). FYI – 2011 Red-capped Robin / 2010 Lemur / 2009 Christmas 1994 nor'easter / 2008 Robert Sterling Yard / 2007 Flight feather / 2006 Clement of Dunblane / 2005 Ido / 2004 Shroud of Turin.
In other business, the non-specific date slots have gone very quiet... BencherliteTalk 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Strongly) suggest William the Conqueror. As the date the Norman Conquest was completed, and of his coronation, it has undoubted strong date relevance (his birthdate is lost, and 26 September and 14 October (the other two significant dates in his life; his landing in England and the death of Harold Godwinson) aren't commemorated in any way and are only of interest to historians. Running this on the traditionally low-vandalism day of December 25 would have the additional bonus of showcasing a high-value topic whilst avoiding tying the authors up grimly reverting vandals all day. – iridescent 00:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I or User:PKM have had an art Nativity in the DYK picture slot for the last 3 of the last 4 years, for part of the day anyway, along with other Christmassy stuff, & I will aim to do so again, so the very un-festive William can have the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, I had thought of William the Conqueror already, remembering his coronation date (spot the man married to a medieval historian...) but I'm a little reluctant to schedule it when Ealdgyth is rather unwilling. Any other thoughts? BencherliteTalk 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I or User:PKM have had an art Nativity in the DYK picture slot for the last 3 of the last 4 years, for part of the day anyway, along with other Christmassy stuff, & I will aim to do so again, so the very un-festive William can have the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Points for non-anglosphere article?
It hasn't really mattered much since there's currently very little competition for specific dates, but I wonder if extra points would be worthwhile for articles that cover things outside the English-speaking world? That might possibly help with some of the diversity issues brought in earlier discussions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- We need the articles first, and there don't seem to be many from non-English areas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)