Added new section: Question: Does one need to be a significant contributor to an article to nominate it for TFA? |
|||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
I think a diversity point for articles on the language, culture, geography, or history of non-English speaking countries is probably workable, but I would question whether it was really needed. I count 6 such articles (starting with the one on the Monaco grand prix) scheduled for December and that doesn't count the British-French naval battle on the main page now, or the article about a rape case involving an American serviceman on Okinawa either of which might be arguable. I am not strongly opposed but I think a certian amount of bias towards topics of interest in large English speaking countries is kind of inevitable in an English language encyclopedia. [[User:Rusty Cashman|Rusty Cashman]] ([[User talk:Rusty Cashman|talk]]) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
I think a diversity point for articles on the language, culture, geography, or history of non-English speaking countries is probably workable, but I would question whether it was really needed. I count 6 such articles (starting with the one on the Monaco grand prix) scheduled for December and that doesn't count the British-French naval battle on the main page now, or the article about a rape case involving an American serviceman on Okinawa either of which might be arguable. I am not strongly opposed but I think a certian amount of bias towards topics of interest in large English speaking countries is kind of inevitable in an English language encyclopedia. [[User:Rusty Cashman|Rusty Cashman]] ([[User talk:Rusty Cashman|talk]]) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I am not saying it is not inevitable, but for the sake of argument say an article somewhat similar to [[Badnjak]] might get nominated, but because there are 100 times more articles about English language politician or or US/UK buildings (which are very obscure topics outside their original countries), there is a significant chance that a good number of the available slots were taken by decade anniversaries and maybe even some centenaries. Giving an extra point would somewhat reduce that possibility, and would work in very similar ways as underrepresented topics at FA work now. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
:I am not saying it is not inevitable, but for the sake of argument say an article somewhat similar to [[Badnjak]] might get nominated, but because there are 100 times more articles about English language politician or or US/UK buildings (which are very obscure topics outside their original countries), there is a significant chance that a good number of the available slots were taken by decade anniversaries and maybe even some centenaries. Giving an extra point would somewhat reduce that possibility, and would work in very similar ways as underrepresented topics at FA work now. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Question: Does one need to be a significant contributor to an article to nominate it for TFA?== |
|||
I'm a long-time reader but recently registered editor to Wikipedia, and would like to suggest the article [[2000 Sugar Bowl]] for January 4, 2010. By my interpretation of the rules on the [[WP:TFAR]] page, the article would have 3 points, two for the game's ten-year anniversary and one because it has been more than one year since the article was promoted to featured status (November 15, 2008). I believe this date would also be appropriate as the game represents the second National Championship and high point of the career of [[Bobby Bowden]], the second-winningest coach in [[college football]] history whose last game, the [[2010 Gator Bowl]], will take place three days prior to the anniversary on January 1. |
|||
I thought it best to ask here first, because although the rules don't explicitly say that only significant contributors to featured articles may nominate them, from reading past nominations and talk page comments, it seems assumed that significant contributors are the ones making the nominations. Thanks for your attention. <i>[[User:Grondemar|–]][[User talk:Grondemar|Grondemar]]</i> 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:56, 21 December 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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 19 | John D. Whitney | Why | Ergo Sum | |
July 21 | Ernest Hemingway | Why | Victoriaearle | Dank |
August 10 | Operation Boomerang | Why | Nick-D | Harizotoh9 |
August 11 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T2 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
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 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 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 | ||
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 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 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 20 | Nuremberg trials | Why | buidhe | harizotoh9 |
December 25 | Ho Ho Ho (album) | Why | harizotoh9 |
Next to be replaced
On the subject of opposes and "next to be replaced", it seems odd that an article with 8:1 votes is more vulnerable than an article with 2:0 votes. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 12:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see that this is not just a theoretical concept: an article with 8 Supports and 1 Oppose is next to be replaced, ahead of an article with 2 Supports and no Opposes. That seems very illogical to me. Indeed, as it currently stands, an article with 1 support (the nominator) ranks higher than one with 99 supports and 1 oppose. Perhaps support should instead be gauged by Supports minus Opposes. Or perhaps Supports minus twice Opposes, since Opposes are so rare. In that case 8-2 would (properly in my view) outrank 2-0. Krakatoa (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Big picture-- paucity of opposes here is a recent trend. Regular page watchers used to use the "oppose" as intended (to help determine which articles were most wanted on the main page). If we change the rules, the behavior changes, and we have to change the rules again. The solution to this is for regular page watchers to oppose when they prefer to see other articles on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I too was surprised at the current policy, which currently benefits my nominee (Prairie Avenue). SandyGeorgia always says that Raul654 thinks very clearly about this page and is almost always right. I have faith in him at the moment, but am curious. I think as long as a nominee of a current article is not the opponent of another, it may be valid. E.g., if I were the one person opposing another article to keep mine from being next to be replaced, it might be a problem. In fact, I kind of concur with the current dissenting voice, but will not state oppose because of how it would look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Sandy, who I eced with on my prior response, opposes have become rare since we have counted them at the top of the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note how subject to manipulation the policy is. As it happens, the only person to oppose the 8-1 article (and I agree that he/she has a point) is also the only non-nominator supporter of Prairie Avenue. (I think this is only coincidence, and am not accusing that person of anything untoward.) Any of the supporters of the video game article could take their article off the chopping block, and put Prairie Avenue on it, by voting Oppose on Prairie Avenue. Krakatoa (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page is recently "subject to manipulation" only because fewer people are "voting". If people disagreed with the choices being made, they'd probably start "voting" again ... in other words, the page is working, or people don't care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes if people "voted" out of revenge or paternalism over their own nominations that might happen. I think most voting is fairly ethical. Like I said, I sort of would oppose for the same reason if it didn't seem wrong to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Woke up and found this discussion. The system works because people mostly act in good faith. If we started getting stragegic opposes, we'd have to reassess. I think to the extent that people are minded to do that kinda thing, they realize that one step down that road is not where they want to go. That may be why they rarely oppose at all, one reason anyway, they don't want to be seen as gaming.
- More to the point, we worked on finding an alternate formula about a year ago, and it was rightly pointed out that the time factor, how long an article had been on the page needed to be taken into account, and we could not reach a consensus on an alternate means.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't exclude the possibility that we may need to reevaluate at some point in the future, but for now, I advocate a wait-and-see approach. If people were really bothered about how the rules were functioning, they'd be weighing in with opposes. Since they aren't, I'm inclined to believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes if people "voted" out of revenge or paternalism over their own nominations that might happen. I think most voting is fairly ethical. Like I said, I sort of would oppose for the same reason if it didn't seem wrong to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page is recently "subject to manipulation" only because fewer people are "voting". If people disagreed with the choices being made, they'd probably start "voting" again ... in other words, the page is working, or people don't care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note how subject to manipulation the policy is. As it happens, the only person to oppose the 8-1 article (and I agree that he/she has a point) is also the only non-nominator supporter of Prairie Avenue. (I think this is only coincidence, and am not accusing that person of anything untoward.) Any of the supporters of the video game article could take their article off the chopping block, and put Prairie Avenue on it, by voting Oppose on Prairie Avenue. Krakatoa (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Sandy, who I eced with on my prior response, opposes have become rare since we have counted them at the top of the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I too was surprised at the current policy, which currently benefits my nominee (Prairie Avenue). SandyGeorgia always says that Raul654 thinks very clearly about this page and is almost always right. I have faith in him at the moment, but am curious. I think as long as a nominee of a current article is not the opponent of another, it may be valid. E.g., if I were the one person opposing another article to keep mine from being next to be replaced, it might be a problem. In fact, I kind of concur with the current dissenting voice, but will not state oppose because of how it would look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Big picture-- paucity of opposes here is a recent trend. Regular page watchers used to use the "oppose" as intended (to help determine which articles were most wanted on the main page). If we change the rules, the behavior changes, and we have to change the rules again. The solution to this is for regular page watchers to oppose when they prefer to see other articles on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought about that myself, but I said "Nah, that would be pretty petty, to oppose someone else just to make yourself look better." :) Besides, why should I of all people oppose something Chicago-related? ;) (Although, to be totally honest, I didn't support it because I didn't want to hurt my own case!) Now, here's something to consider as a future arrangement, if that doesn't complicate things. Let's say we had an article with 10, 12, 15, or even 20 supports with only one oppose - that would still be the replacable article compared to a 2-0? Sounds like consensus is bending reality a bit at that point. :) "Everybody loves it! Well, except that one guy, so toss it out!"
Under the "adding a request" heading we have item #1 which starts "If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes..." so there is a precedent to consider items more strongly (whether in the negative or the positive) if they have received 5 responses. Let's say an item with fewer than five declarations after 48 hours can't beat out an article that has passed #1 if they have the same number of points. Granted, a 4-1 probably should lose to a 4-0, but an 8-1 losing to a 2-0 definitely sounds less plausible. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a solution waiting for a problem. No article has actually been replaced yet. No harm, no foul. And consider WP:CREEP. We have the same number of rules as we did 16 months ago because this page is complicated enough and we don't want to add to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. I find it rather strange that an 8-1 should be held behind a 2-0, especially when the same reason for objecting to Planetscape also applies to Prairie Avenue - an overabundance of Illinois related TFA's lately. As noted though, there is no issue at present, so the wait and see attitude is fine. Incidentally, I'm rather curious to see how the proposed noms of Callisto and Ganymede will be treated. Resolute 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would advise them being proposed as alternatives, and leaving the choice to Raul (or if he prefers, he can run both. Or neither). They should not take up two slots. We did something similar in Sept 2008 for Baltimore City College/History of Baltimore City College.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- An Oppose to Prairie Avenue has now been made on the ground noted by Resolute - so now Prairie Avenue, at 2-1, is next to be replaced. But there don't seem to be any 4-point or better articles coming up to replace it, so maybe it'll stay on the list. Krakatoa (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Opposition
TFAR is about which - out of a group of outstanding articles - gets to jump to the front of the line for the TFA spot. This is clearly a matter of setting priorities based on community judgement, and taste (i.e. opinion), as well as timing issues. Raul has the final word on judgement and taste here, and I expect that he welcomes input from the entire community and I hope that both he and the entire community would accept my judgement on the same basis as others' judgments - that is according to the rules set up here. Opposes do have a higher weight here now - but only because they are so rare. Opposes are necessary when setting priorities and should be encouraged; otherwise the page could degenerate into a series of self-congratulatory pats on the back. I've been fairly consistent in opposing certain topics, including computer games, video, popular culture in general (sometimes including sports), and to a lesser extent hurricanes. Not that these shouldn't be included at all, but that they should appear less often.
My opposition to computer games has been noted before, especially relating to the Columbine game and on another game nominated just the week before the Columbine anniversary. And my opposition has been opposed - great, that's the start of a discussion. I don't actually like giving particular opposes however - it makes me the odd man out much of the time. I do limit my opposes because of this, and usually only give them when I think they may make a difference. Some may consider this game playing or strategic - so be it. So, I'll just ask for your understanding on my quirk of opposing computer games, and hope that if I'm out of line regular editors to this page will tell me privately. Smallbones (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Smallbones. The "oppose" should not have fallen into desuetude. One should not be badgered, questioned, or called to account in any way for opposing a nom here, and frankly I'd like to see a few more of them. I don't know how to solve the problem, though, it is hard to argue with "I don't need the grief. Let Raul get paid the big bucks for turning it down."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Smallbones and Wehwalt: opposes here are how the community makes itself heard to Raul in terms of mainpage selection. On the other hand, if editors aren't opposing, I feel they aren't worried about the selections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
November 30: Scotland's national day
Earlier this month I nominated the great Scottish nationalist and explorer William Speirs Bruce as TFA for St Andrew's Day, 30th November. My request was unceremoniously bumped off because of my inherent inability to work this system properly. I'm not going to nominate it again – there's bound to be disagreement over points allocation – but I still think that it is a good idea to have a Scots-related article on Scotland's national day, and I note that the date is still open. The choice of appropriate articles among FAs is very limited; if another Scottish-themed article is thought a better choice, well and good, but Bruce was treated like sh*t by the establishment for most of his life, so here's a belated opportunity to compensate him. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Raul has stated that he overlooked the thread where Sandy and I asked him to run it, and he'll run it soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added this to the pending requests. As of the 23rd December it will be precisely 6 months since there has been a psychology article on TFA. Also, 2009 is 40 years since the publication of Attachment and psychology is woefully under-represented in FAs. I make that 5 points. Is this correct? Fainites barleyscribs 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, Fainites, we give points for the anniversary of specific dates, not the anniversary of a year. It seems in the article that there is no mention of when in 1969 Attachment was published. This seems to indicate that the publication date was at the latest October, since the NY Times book review reviewed it then. Amazon says it was published on March 1, 1969. I think you've missed the boat on the date relevance/anniversary points and you have three points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh bother. I didn't know which day it was published. Forty years on is quite nice. Still, three points (as of 23rd December) isn't bad. No rush.Fainites barleyscribs 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just nom it as 3 when Raul clears out the request page, I'm sure it will be fine. Don't advise you to wait to March 1, Posting system has already been bumped once and should in my view get that date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- A new 3-point nomination (one nominator support vote, no opposes) would take priority by virtue of least percentage of opposes over both Prairie Avenue (3 points with 5 supports, one oppose) and Planescape: Torment (3 points with 10 supports, one oppose). There's no need for you to wait to nominate. --Noren (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Really? You mean because I haven't put it up yet so it has garnered no opposes, it can "bump" existing nominations? That seems an odd system. Fainites barleyscribs 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. I don't think that's right. The rule states, "If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) ... ." Attachment theory evidently has three points - the same number as Prairie Avenue and Planescape: Torment. The fact that each of those articles has one Oppose vote (and a larger number of Support votes) does not negate the fact that each has the same number of points as Attachment theory. Attachment theory thus has no right to bump either of them. Krakatoa (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you'd have to have four points to replace a three-point artice? BOZ (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Really? You mean because I haven't put it up yet so it has garnered no opposes, it can "bump" existing nominations? That seems an odd system. Fainites barleyscribs 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- A new 3-point nomination (one nominator support vote, no opposes) would take priority by virtue of least percentage of opposes over both Prairie Avenue (3 points with 5 supports, one oppose) and Planescape: Torment (3 points with 10 supports, one oppose). There's no need for you to wait to nominate. --Noren (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just nom it as 3 when Raul clears out the request page, I'm sure it will be fine. Don't advise you to wait to March 1, Posting system has already been bumped once and should in my view get that date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh bother. I didn't know which day it was published. Forty years on is quite nice. Still, three points (as of 23rd December) isn't bad. No rush.Fainites barleyscribs 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It's probably immaterial at this point, because the Canadiens article is almost certain to get on the front page tomorrow, and then you'll have a free spot. BOZ (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 09:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming no one grabs it first - you've got to be quick! ;) BOZ (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, December 6 will open up in a couple of days. Krakatoa (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You must have more points than an existing article to replace it. You can't use a presumed tiebreaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Besides, you aren't shooting for any particular date anymore, just to get beyond December 23. So pick any date that no one's likely to put in for, go look at the template. However, please select a date, we discourage "oh, just run it anytime" or a date range unless there's a very good reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well I still think "40 years on" is quite nice. On the other hand it gets over 50,000 hits a month in term time but somewhat less in the holidays. You have to feel sorry for all those lecturers having to read a version of the same thing over and over. Fainites barleyscribs 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, all of my FA's together don't get that many, except if they are running the Natalee Holloway Movie, which won't happen again, it is out on DVD.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well it's quite a big thing in child development and allied circles though you still get people who say there is no such thing as attachment theory. Or the chap who infested the articles for months claiming Bowlby had nothing to do with it and it was all a plot to deprive fathers of their rights. Anyway - I can't compete on "have to be quick" nominations as I'm on English time so it's all over bar the shouting by the time I get to the computer.Fainites barleyscribs 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, all of my FA's together don't get that many, except if they are running the Natalee Holloway Movie, which won't happen again, it is out on DVD.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well I still think "40 years on" is quite nice. On the other hand it gets over 50,000 hits a month in term time but somewhat less in the holidays. You have to feel sorry for all those lecturers having to read a version of the same thing over and over. Fainites barleyscribs 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Besides, you aren't shooting for any particular date anymore, just to get beyond December 23. So pick any date that no one's likely to put in for, go look at the template. However, please select a date, we discourage "oh, just run it anytime" or a date range unless there's a very good reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You must have more points than an existing article to replace it. You can't use a presumed tiebreaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, December 6 will open up in a couple of days. Krakatoa (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming no one grabs it first - you've got to be quick! ;) BOZ (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- So much for that belief. ;) I'll admit, I am at a loss to understand how a centennial anniversary is left off in favour of a random movie, likely partly because a random car race got scheduled recently. Guess I'll have to try again on the 100th anniversary of the first game, though tomorrow was the key anniversary. Resolute 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- (surprised). You could post on Raul's talk page, he is usually tolerant about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did, though with three hours until the next one goes up, it may not happen. C'est la vie. At least there are other anniversaries I can target. Resolute 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- (surprised). You could post on Raul's talk page, he is usually tolerant about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) There are now two articles that are bumpable by a three-pointer such as yours - Ceres has over 50% Oppose votes, and the N'Easter article has only 1-2 points. So hurry up and post your article. Krakatoa (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't get 3 points until the 23rd. Anyway - "bumping" articles seems such a meanie thing to do. Fainites barleyscribs 23:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Moons
With two moons coming up (Jan 11 and Jan 13), now would be a good time to sort which one should get the spot, and to double check the points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to lose count after six. Obviously there could be a dropoff if Ceres runs. If I had to pick one, I'd pick Ganymede. Better known, has played more in science fiction (Farmer in the Sky, James Hogan's Giants series. I'll look through the months for similar articles. I think "similar" is any big hunk of rock that floats up there, without getting too worried about terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Ganymede is the more interesting of the two. I'd like to see Ceres and Ganymede both run. Two astronomy articles in two weeks isn't that excessive. --Noren (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Two astronomy articles in three days is excessive; we need to choose one. Could folks add Support under one or the other below? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Ganymede is the more interesting of the two. I'd like to see Ceres and Ganymede both run. Two astronomy articles in two weeks isn't that excessive. --Noren (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Callisto has one point more (it's marginally older; two years rather than one) but Ganymede is the one which actually discusses the discovery date in the article, and I think is marginally better put-together. Shimgray | talk | 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no record in the template of how the points were arrived at; the points need review. Has one or the other of the primary contributors never had an FA? Could anyone detail the points under each section below, for discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Callisto has one point more (it's marginally older; two years rather than one) but Ganymede is the one which actually discusses the discovery date in the article, and I think is marginally better put-together. Shimgray | talk | 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Jan 11 Callisto (moon) 8 (or 5) pt
- Promoted October 2007; +2 points
- Centennial anniversary; +6 points
- Basic subject matter - probably not
- Main page representation - Scattered Disc in October 2009, so no bonus points; -3 if Ceres used
Jan 13 Ganymede (moon) 7 (or 4) pt
- Promoted February 2008; +1 point
- Centennial anniversary; +6 points
- Basic subject matter - probably not
- Main page representation - Scattered Disc in October 2009, so no bonus points; -3 if Ceres or Callisto used
- Support added to this section as requested, per my comment above. --Noren (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support more interesting moon (biggest, and magnetosphere). Also, if I were to give my 2 cents, it would be 12 days after Ceres, which would be near the 2-weeks threshold set in the rules. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The largest satellite in SS should have a priority, although I have always liked Callisto's article more than Ganymede's. Ruslik_Zero 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, since Ruslik0 is the significant contributor on both articles, I think we should defer to his wishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Bigger is better. Personally, I'd do an Obama-McCain number and feature them both on the same day (either Jan. 11 or the in-between day, Jan. 12), but I gather that's probably not going to happen again. Failing that, I'd run all three articles, including Ceres. As someone said on the main page, no one's going to accuse Wikipedia of being too frivolous for running three moon/dwarf planet articles in two weeks. Krakatoa (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Should one of these be on the nomination page now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- And that's the only thing preventing one of us from putting it up: it really should be there. Strategic voting is precisely how the page is 'sposed to work-- to sort out what the community wants to see on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support If we are only going to run one of the two Jupiter moon articles then this is the one. The orbital resonance and the grooved surface make it more interesting even though they are both great artilcles. However, if we do only run one of these 2, then I think we should definately go ahead and run the Ceres dwarf planet article. The 3 point loss for this one will not matter, as 4 points will be plenty to stick on the nomination page and this article will have no problem getting support. It is still a pitty we have to choose amongst them though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS. The fact that you can conlcude that neither of these qualifies for basic subject matter (which I would question if the extra point would have mattered since I think bright junior high school students might write a report on the moons of Jupiter) is another example of what is wrong with that point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Moot. Ganymede is eligible to go on the request page now, and unless someone puts it there, it's not going to run anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS. The fact that you can conlcude that neither of these qualifies for basic subject matter (which I would question if the extra point would have mattered since I think bright junior high school students might write a report on the moons of Jupiter) is another example of what is wrong with that point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Points on Prairie Avenue - significant coverage of event?
Per the page rules, "Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article." The event in question is mentioned in a single mid-paragraph sentence in the body of the article. Does this meet the significant coverage requirement? --Noren (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I guess. We are fairly liberal on that sort of thing, especially when there are few significant dates in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I note that the requests page has been semi protected for 15 months. Is there a reason to keep it going, or should we take it off? I don't think IPs should nominate, but they could engage in discussion. I doubt many will.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: giving an extra point to non-US/UK subjects?
There seems to be a significant amount of pages going here that are about North American weather, US politicians, Illinois places, US transport system, English writers. I think it would make sense to give an extra point to those articles that are not about that, or to give some sort of penalty for articles about that. Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) For example, for the month of December I could count only 8 articles that are not Commonwealth-related (including the two science articles). Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at. Well written articles on non-English topics like this one already receive good support, but there just aren't that many of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but giving extra incentive would help users focus on them a bit more. Also, in case of ties this would help. Nergaal (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the inherent bias of Wikipedia is that people will write about what they want. I think the population writing FAs for the expressed purpose of making it up to TFA is very small, and I don't see a +1 on TFAR making a noticeable difference. Incidentally, I like how the scope of your complaint went from "UK" to "Commonwealth". Do Canadian and Australian FAs get the extra point or not? ;) Resolute 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Was the ad hoc article on Ashley Peeler (nationality unknown) counted in your estimate? Yomanganitalk 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but giving extra incentive would help users focus on them a bit more. Also, in case of ties this would help. Nergaal (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a diversity point for articles on the language, culture, geography, or history of non-English speaking countries is probably workable, but I would question whether it was really needed. I count 6 such articles (starting with the one on the Monaco grand prix) scheduled for December and that doesn't count the British-French naval battle on the main page now, or the article about a rape case involving an American serviceman on Okinawa either of which might be arguable. I am not strongly opposed but I think a certian amount of bias towards topics of interest in large English speaking countries is kind of inevitable in an English language encyclopedia. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying it is not inevitable, but for the sake of argument say an article somewhat similar to Badnjak might get nominated, but because there are 100 times more articles about English language politician or or US/UK buildings (which are very obscure topics outside their original countries), there is a significant chance that a good number of the available slots were taken by decade anniversaries and maybe even some centenaries. Giving an extra point would somewhat reduce that possibility, and would work in very similar ways as underrepresented topics at FA work now. Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: Does one need to be a significant contributor to an article to nominate it for TFA?
I'm a long-time reader but recently registered editor to Wikipedia, and would like to suggest the article 2000 Sugar Bowl for January 4, 2010. By my interpretation of the rules on the WP:TFAR page, the article would have 3 points, two for the game's ten-year anniversary and one because it has been more than one year since the article was promoted to featured status (November 15, 2008). I believe this date would also be appropriate as the game represents the second National Championship and high point of the career of Bobby Bowden, the second-winningest coach in college football history whose last game, the 2010 Gator Bowl, will take place three days prior to the anniversary on January 1.
I thought it best to ask here first, because although the rules don't explicitly say that only significant contributors to featured articles may nominate them, from reading past nominations and talk page comments, it seems assumed that significant contributors are the ones making the nominations. Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)