Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Coordinators

< Wikipedia:Today's featured article
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFACO)
Shortcut

A venue for TFA coordinators to coordinate scheduling. Comments/messages from others can be left on the talk page.

  • Today is: November 29, 2024 – next free TFA slot is: February 1, 2025 – days scheduled: 64 update this

Current availability

edit

@TFA coordinators : What is our policy on scheduling articles we've written ourselves? I want to put Streatham portrait for February 12th, but should I TFAR it, or choose it myself? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine

edit

@TFA coordinators - Any thoughts on running Super Columbine Massacre RPG! some time? Or too controversial? (Bencherlite, thoughts?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would find this utterly repellant. A video game based on a massacre in which 12 children and their teacher lost their lives, only about 15 years ago. I don't care how "good" the article is, let us try and preserve some standards of decency. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I'm not going to get involved unless you two are at an impasse. OTOH, I don't want to be mysterious, I'll offer an opinion if you want it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I was thinking along the lines of Brian (maybe not as empathetically), but I was just thinking that we may want to discuss where we draw the line on the NOTCENSORED issue. In my experience, it's one of the more controversial issues we'll be facing.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

edit

@TFA coordinators - Seems I let some unreferenced material slip through to the main page earlier (see Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil). Apparently, several sentences in the lead had been supported by the body when the article was promoted, but said referencing was lost when two of the paragraphs were removed several months later (though the lead sentences, which were used for TFA, were still there). Now:

  1. How big of a problem is this (or similar occurrences)?
  2. How can we avoid this happening in the future, if possible? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main question is, how can I help? There have been rare times at FAC where I picked up that something might be wrong with sourcing ... and I said so at the FAC. Per my standard copyediting disclaimer, I generally don't even look at sourcing ... and a lot of copyeditors take the same general approach of avoiding distractions when possible. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we are scheduling around three weeks before appearance is so that the main contributing editors have plenty of time to check that the article in its current form is still consistent with FA criteria, including referencing, dead links etc. It is not down to scheduling coordinators to do this – our lives would be impossible otherwise. The problem of course is that in some instances – not, I think, Afonso – the main editors have departed. There, we run the risk that there might be glitches, but in my case, provided that there is nothing obvious amiss, it's a risk I will sometimes take, otherwise the pool of available articles shrinks dramatically. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. If the FAC nominator that I'm notifying hasn't edited for more than 3 months, I go ahead and notify them anyway, in case they're watching or being notified by email ... but I've been thinking of notifying a relevant wikiproject in these cases as well. It looks like I should be doing that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Never Liked You

edit

@TFA coordinators : The above article has been nominated in one of TFAR's undated slots. There seems little reason to run it, except to gratify some desire to see a rude word on the front page, again. I would oppose scheduling this any time soon, but would like to know other coordinators' opinions. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been avoiding alternate names, more or less per the TFA instructions, so I removed that particular alternate name and explained at TFAR. In general, I'm a fan of Curly's work and I'm happy to see it on the Main Page ... we just had one of his recently (wordless novel), but timing is up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Dank's removed the F word, and I know Curly well enough to know that he is a very big fan of visual novels and comics (the article on Maus was also written by him, for instance) and thus unlikely to nominate the article for the giggles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

edit

My view is that Invisible rail could run as a straight article, without a jokey blurb or any nudge-nudge stuff. {[Toledo wars]] would be a possible alternative choice, although nine years old, it has been reasonably well maintained – I recognise some current FAC names in the recent revision history. Incidentally, it's fascinating to see what passed for a FAC review back then (when I was a humble IP). You might get some flak for dumping a well-supported nomination in favour of a choice that hasn't been offered for a community viewpoint, and doesn't have date relevance. You'd have a stronger case for dumping "rail" if you chose a date-related alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course. Hence why I've added a note about the Toledo war to the rail nom. Shame the only date-relevant article which is remotely "strange" is Girl Pat. If we ran that, we'd probably be accused of a COI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seward and Johnson

edit
  • @TFA coordinators : These have been nominated for successive days, 14 and 15 April. Both are 150th anniversaries. My problem is that the anniversaries are related to the same overarching event: the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, in which Seward was wounded and which resulted in Johnson's assumption of the presidency. I'm not sure that the anniversary of an unsuccessful assassination attempt is itself that significant, snd if only one of these were to run, I'd plump for Johnson. Two historical American politicians in a row might look like TFA over-representation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling

edit
  • @TFA coordinators We seem to have fallen off our aim of giving between 2 and 3 weeks' notification of TFA appearances – 12 days to 1 April now. I believe we should try to keep the 2–3 week interval, unless there is a good reason not to. Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said (above, I believe) I want there to be enough discussion for the April Fools article, in case something besides Invisible Rail comes up. I'll be back to scheduling on the 25th, when I come back from my trip (leaving for the station in half an hour). I plan on doing a whole week at once, to get us back to 2-3 weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder whether waiting for a further five days is either necessary or wise? There has been ample time for consideration of the April 1 date; the discussion on the TFAR page has been dormant for weeks, and no one has come up with a serious alternative suggestion to the rail article. Is extending the discussion period likely to achieve anything? By continuing the delay, and bringing the notification interval down to a week, I fear we risk comparison with the bad old days when people complained about insufficient notice. If it is difficult for you to schedule due to being away, I can easily deal with the first two or three days, and thus keep things moving. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR

edit

Crisco, hope the trip went well. Guys, lately I've been waiting until articles are scheduled before I work on the TFA paragraphs, and only running through TFAR looking for something to do about once a week. Any problems with that? In particular, I haven't been involved in the notifications process at TFAR. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have a clear understanding on how and when principal editors etc are notified. When I was scheduling for March, I understood that Dank was doing it so I left it to him. Is that not the situation? They need to be notified soon after the notification, to give plenty of time for checking and preparation.
I've been doing all the notifications for the ones that don't go through TFAR. I thought the FAC nominators were being notified at the start of TFAR ... I'll go check to make sure, and notify anyone who hasn't been already. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, if there is no new signature in the post, mentioning someone doesn't activate Echo. I've been leaving notifications to Dan as well, as he's mentioned before that he is fine with doing it.
Trip went well. From a personal perspective, my wife loved it. From a Wikipedia perspective, it's resulted in 3 new articles and numerous image (several which may be FP material). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Okay, just doublechecked all the ones that went through TFAR that will appear on the Main Page from now through April 14 ... I didn't miss any, at least one of the FAC noms was involved with each one. (There's no reason to notify if they're already participating, right?) I'll keep doublechecking from here on out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionate choices

edit
@TFA coordinators

As far as possible our scheduling of TFAs should broadly follow the proportions of available FAs in the various subject categories. The extent to which we can do this is partly governed by the number that we can schedule ourselves, outside TFAR. I've just checked the figures as they stand at 14 April, 104 days into the year. There are cuurrently three subject categories that are significantly under-represented in the numbers of articles scheduled, and three that are likewise over-represented. Here are the details:

Under-represented
  • Warfare: should have 19, has 13. Under-represented by 6
  • Transport: should have 5, has 2. Under-represented by 3
  • Meteorology: should have 5, has 2. Under-represented by 3
Over-represented
  • Media: should have 9, has 13. Over-represented by 4
  • Lit/Theatre: should have 4, has 8. Over-represented by 4
  • Royalty: should have 2, has 5. Over-represented by 3

These figures should be born in mind as we schedule during the rest of April, and May. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could probably bump Caelum without an issue. That would still leave room for another War article at the end of April (I like that new Cretan War (205-200 BC) nomination). Shame it's got sourcing issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (edit, 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

1 April

edit

I see that at this late date, someone has made an alternative nomination, notwithstanding the weeks that we allowed before the choice for 1 April was finalised. The nom page makes it clear that we are now accepting nominations from 19 April to 19 May, so surely there is no justification for leaving this out-of-time nomination on the page? Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit
  • Montana is suggesting we resolve two claims on one date by running Gary Cooper the next day ... since that will in fact be May 1 May 7 for 7 or 8 hours for people in the western US. This is a scheduling matter, so it's up to you guys, but ... particularly on Wikipedia ... I always prefer solutions where everyone wins (or at least where we've got an argument that everyone wins). - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image suggestions

edit

Can I suggest a cropped version of File:Daniel Craig on Venice yacht crop w Wilson.jpg for tomorrow (Craig, during filming of Casino Royale)? I haven't seen any studies, but I'm betting images are important for drawing in the 10M daily Main Page viewers to actually look at our column, and the best column in the world is of no use to the person who doesn't read it. There's an argument that this shouldn't be the face our readers are most likely to associate with the book Casino Royale ... but whether they should or not, they probably will, because of the recent blockbuster film. For April 19, I suggest File:Nancy Cartwright.jpg (the real Bart Simpson), and for WP:Today's featured article/April 22, 2015, I've asked over at Milhist for a better image than File:SM UD 3 port.jpg. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tangentially related in the first instance (Craig has no direct relation to the novel itself). For Cartright, I considered it, but decided against it as one would expect an image of Bart Simpson in the blurb about the character. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the voice-actress for Bart Simpson isn't relevant to Bart Simpson. Do we require a picture of an actual Godfather rather than Marlon Brando? It will be difficult, but I'll try to find studies that are as relevant as possible that will give us an idea how many readers our column loses when we don't have an image. I bet it's a lot, simply because most people who get to the Main Page weren't doing it to get to our column ... we'll have to lure them in if we want them to read us. When I have a number, I'll return to this topic. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add ... I'm not using the best social skills here, we've been on the job almost 4 months and I haven't given you feedback on your excellent work on images (because I don't know much about images ... but still, I owe you the effort). In the absence of praise, this is likely to come across as criticism, and I don't mean it as criticism. I put a lot of work into these, and I hope it makes a difference ... I think we probably get a few more of those 10M actually reading our column when the language is easier and the ideas flow coherently. It's just really frustrating knowing that everything that I do is wasted on the people who don't look at the column to begin with, and most people in publishing think images are important, particularly for the purpose of drawing people in who didn't show up at your page specifically to read your column. But this is all handwaving ... I'll try to get some numbers for you, and I'll spend some time learning more about what you do ... my thanks won't mean a lot until I do (although I note that everyone loves your work, and on Wikipedia, that's saying something). - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my internet's been acting up (I've tried replying twice already, and it's failed every time). I didn't say that Cartwright isn't relevant to Bart (only that Craig had no direct relation to the novel), but that I decided against including her as Bart's much more familiar. If you think it's a good idea, that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks ... what I should have said is that adding Craig is a novel theory that might be worth considering (adding something if it's what the readers might be expecting) ... totally happy with your decision. Thanks on Cartright, I'll move mention of her up to the front for clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've generally applied a degrees of TFA approach, with images of the TFA subject itself being 0, something related to the TFA subject as 1, something related to something related to the TFA subject as 2, etc.; I think only the first degree (and 0, of course) should be worth considering for TFA. Applying this to the Casino Royale, we end up with Craig, who is related to a film adaptation, which is made based on the novel (or two degrees). A bit far out of the way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess not everyone agreed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing me there, I have been watchlisting WP:ERRORS but not WT:MAIN. Replied there. Crisco, I realize that it would be a problem for all of us if the community decided we're not to be trusted on images ... and since you have more "reputation" (in some sense) regarding images, there's more for you to lose if we goof ... I don't want to be insensitive to that. OTOH, I don't think I'm wrong, and I hope people will come around to my view. Hopefully I'll get some replies at WT:MAIN, and we'll go from there. My partner John is investigating the general issue (outside Wikipedia) of the value of pictures for news columns and general interest columns. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long ... Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2015 doesn't currently have an image. Kevin Conroy voiced Batman and Mark Hamill voiced the Joker; we have free images for both. Thoughts, guys? - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These edits make a fitting end to this thread. My patience is exhausted with TFA image issues (not with either of you of course, people have had no problems with your work to my knowledge), and I'd prefer to have nothing to do with them (other than the hover-text and size=133px as needed). I'll send any requests I get over to you, Chris. If you guys want to designate someone to handle image emergencies, for example when people change or complain about an image during its TFA day for times when you're not online, I'll be happy to try to fetch whoever you want me to fetch, or if you want to set up some standard operating procedure for me to follow, that works too. - Dank (push to talk) 04:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this one's worth giving up over; I can see why David would have done so, and it's not really anything intrusive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have no problem with your call on that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, if I understand you correctly here, David and others might want to see 133px added for some pics and not for others depending on how easy it is to make out what's in the image. I'd prefer not to engage with people at ERRORS on these issues. I take it that people want 133px on landscape more often than not (or someone would have complained before now), so I'll keep adding those, but please remove any that you don't like (such as this one) before TFA day. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do, if the image looks a bit big. This wouldn't have helped us in the current situation, because the image was changed when the summary was on the main page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some context: I got some bad news yesterday, and I'm reevaluating my workload. Ditching anything to do with images is an easy call; no one expects much of me in that department anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to discussion at WT:FAC

edit

WT:FAC#Writing conflicts at WP:TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, when we got started in January, I didn't ask around for help editing because I was concerned that I wouldn't have time to help sort out all the discussions that might come up if we had a lot of people editing. I'm not concerned about that now. The TFAs don't seem be arousing a lot of edits, not even at WP:ERRORS. If either of you want to make edits to TFA text, feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's TFA (May 25)

edit

Some changes were made that I've reverted for the moment. Happy to get any input from you guys, see User talk:Dank#TFA blurbs and article leads. - Dank (push to talk) 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's sorted. I wanted to go for a while letting people do whatever they wanted to do so we could see what would happen. At this point, we've got enough data I think (I can give more details, but basically, people have been happy with my work, not a lot of edits have been made to the TFA text on its Main Page day, and most of those edits that were made wound up being reverted, for good reasons, I think). Going forward, I'm ready to make some recommendations. I think it would be a good idea for me to check my watchlist even more often, at least once an hour for fifteen hours every day, for reports at ERRORS, and I need someone who's familiar with all the TFA constraints to be monitoring ERRORS when I'm asleep. I think we should add an edit summary to the TFAs that strongly encourages people to make reports at ERRORS rather than editing a TFA directly on its Main Page day (except for obvious mistakes, but there haven't been many of those and I hope to have even fewer). Occasionally, I've had to pull a sentence from below the lead into the TFA text; I think going forward I'm going to copy those sentences into the lead as well, and solicit feedback on that. That will help me make the case that if people want to make a substantive change to the TFA text that isn't reflected in the lead, they'll need to first discuss on the article talk page, make the change to the article lead, and get it to stick. Also, whenever someone makes a comment at ERRORS or edits (or tries to edit) the TFA text, I will invite them to become more involved with FAC and TFA, so that if I have to revert what they're doing or reject their advice, they won't think I don't appreciate their efforts. Also, the two times I've had to go to WT:ITN (including yesterday) to ask to go over my character limit, they've been quite nice about it, so I'd like to bump our self-imposed limit from 1250 characters up to 1300 (to help deal with the problems that arose yesterday). Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I probably don't need to be watchful in the last 4 hours of each day (UTC time). - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind an extra fifty characters. I am wary, however, about changing the lead of the article itself. Some articles don't have 1250 characters (or however many) in the lead for a good reason. A 1250 character lead in Miss Meyers would take up a third of the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point; the shortest FAs often omit things from the lead that you'd usually find there if those things are in the first section or subsection, because it would sound odd to repeat the information so soon. So for any FAs that omit material from the lead for that reason, I'd be talking about the lead plus the first section or subsection. Miss Meyers is an extreme example of course, with only 746 characters in the lead plus the first section ... and I don't see anything I'd want to pull up into the lead section from any of the other sections. My (rare) lower limit these days is around 950. Hard cases make bad law; instead of trying to figure out how to turn that article into a suitable TFA, I'd rather say that it's not very suitable as a TFA. On the point of being wary of adding something to the lead ... I'm wary, but for a different reason: I don't want to start any more arguments than I have to to get my job done. Nevertheless, in all the cases that I can think of off the top of my head, the sentences I would have added to the lead would have improved the lead. I'll work on a complete list for you tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that I'll get to this soon. In the meantime, in cases where I needed something that was in the article but not in the lead, I've been adding that material to the lead ... in each case, it's been an improvement AFAICT ... and haven't been reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Chris's revert of a change in the image in the current TFA ... I just want to say again that, although I don't know what I'm doing with images and don't want to be the guy making the calls, I think it's important not to have changes to the current TFA that we don't like hanging around for 8 hours unchallenged ... so if you guys want to give me specific instructions for what to do if an image is changed to an unacceptable image in the current TFA when you're not available, I'll be happy to keep an eye on the current TFA (most hours) and follow your instructions. If we can get someone else doing this, that's good too. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd be happiest if there were no changes to the TFA image on D-Day without discussion. We schedule two weeks ahead for a reason. Sometimes it works (the rodent image was acceptable), sometimes it doesn't. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, is that your preference too? Should I revert any image changes if there's been no discussion and I'm the first to see it? (And on the Pluto point ... it makes my job easier if I know that readers will be interested in what I'm writing about ... and the articles you guys have been giving me lately have been fantastic. That said, scheduling is completely up to you guys.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duh

edit

"Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 11, 2015 to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 13, 2016". Duh, why didn't I think of that? Yes, when you have to move TFAs, I'd prefer we keep the history by simply moving the page whenever possible. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

edit

@Crisco 1492:@Dank:

My brain is not working too well at present. First, I forgot that we have this discussion page. Then, it didn't register that "Chris Woodrich" who has indicated support for this TFA, and "Crisco", are one and the same. My apologies to you both.

The issue is simply whether this nomination should breach the general rule that articles do not appear twice on TFA. There have been occasional exceptions (I believe Bencherlite left a list somewhere though I don't know where it is). In this case, the first TFA was eight years ago, and the event on 14 July seems to me to be of appropriate significance to justify another exception. I have a different article in mind for 15 July, so 14th would be the more appropriate date. Unless there are other factors that I haven't thought of, I will schedule this for 14th. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note, I didn't mean to indicate support for the TFAR by striking my oppose; I just wanted to give it time to develop normally. I don't mind running Pluto again on the 14th, so long as the quality of the article is still up to par. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I wondered why you had been quiet over here, Brian. Guys, thanks, I'm happy with that. - Dank (push to talk) 11:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 July

edit

@Crisco 1492:@Dank:@Bencherlite:

Please see the kerfuffle that is building up on User talk:Brianboulton, regarding my replacement TFA choice for 24 July.

Imzadi states: "I'm firmly in the camp that FAs I've shepherded through the process should be reserved for anniversaries," and also: "I'm willing to deal with [TFA hassle] for an anniversary, but not for some random date with no connection to the subject". I'm not impressed by either of these reasons for not scheduling Interstate 96, which merely reflect his personal convenience. His additional argument, that he might not be available to watch the article on 24th because he may be moving house, doesn't carry any weight either. He's got plenty of time before then to check over the article, which was promoted only two years ago and looks in tidy shape, and lots of other eyes will be on it come the day. Anything that gets through them, he can easily rectify a day or two later.

I believe that any article that is featured becomes automatically available to be TFA, and I think that one of our duties as coordinators is to ensure that the full range of article subjects is reflected in the TFA slot – this in my view is more important than pandering to individuals with an essentially selfish agenda. I will always defer scheduling, or change a scheduled article, if there are sound encyclopaedic reasons for doing so – I have done so several times – but I do not accept the view that the final decision rests with the principal author of an article. That, as SchroCat observes on my page, would be an unacceptable level of ownership. I intend to stand firm on this, but naturally would like to hear from my colleagues. I've also invited Bencherlite into the discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precognition being one of the requirements of coordship, I emailed you some thoughts on that this morning ... I can discuss those thoughts here if you like. Speaking of kerfuffles, I'm going to hold off responding at User talk:Floquenbeam for a few days, there's a lot to process there and I want to give you and Chris plenty of time to mull it over and come to your own conclusions about what, if anything, we need to be doing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is just a scheduling issue. It is a point of principle as to whether the main author of an article has a right of veto over an article's selection for TFA. In this case, the chief author's chief reason is that he finds TFA a hassle and can't be botherd with it unless it chimes with some anniverary. As a result of this selfish attitude – which simply places the burden on others – we have a pile of seemingly immovable Michigan road articles. Now, he is suggesting that another Michigan road article would be more acceptable, blah blah blah. I'm going to leave this hanging until Sunday when I do my next scheduling stint. I may be feeling more magnainmous then. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FA backwaters

edit

@Crisco 1492:@Dank: Apart from roads (see above and also my talkpage), there are other pockets of featured articles that have proved somewhat TFA-resistant and which I think we should bear in mind in future scheduling:

  • Australian service personnel biographies: these do occasionally appear, but there are still 38 of them, far outnumering the combined military biographies of all other nations. Australia, the great warmonger. Most of these Aussie articles are for air force officers, mainly quite obscure. We do need to pick a few more of these up, before the Milhist cache becomes even more distorted than is now.
  • Kentucky governors (yawwwwwn). There are 14 of these. Thankfully the perpetrator is relatively inactive at present, so the problem isn't growing, but we ought to get rid of some of these while we can. Possibly for August, Bert T. Combs (b. 13.8.1911)?

There may be other murky areas that need stirring. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think of TFA as a place to showcase that Wikipedians know how to write and have a sense of what's interesting, rather than the reverse. You guys have made a lot of great choices so far, but I just want to be clear: the TFA column is going to be very short if you give me an article that goes something like this: "X is a mushroom. No one has ever said anything interesting about this mushroom, and it has no notable properties. Scientists used to call it this, but then they started calling it that, and later on they called it something else". (And I'm not a fungiphobe, this applies equally to any article that doesn't have anything that can be massaged into something with broad appeal.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Away for a few days

edit

@Crisco 1492:@Dank:

  • I'm away from home for a few days, with limited (I-pad) internet access, so I probably won't be able to schedule more TFAs until Friday. We're scheduled until 3 September, so there'll still be nearly 2 weeks' notice when I resume.
  • There is a potential double-header coming up for 7 September, if Paterson Clarence Hughes in promoted in time. I'm not sure of the mechanics for doing this within the scheduling procedure – any hints?

Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton:@Dank: - It depends on whether or not we want to randomize who goes first. If we don't randomize it, we just go on as usual. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ian has offered to help with this one (at WT:TFAR). Btw, you probably noticed that there's some kind of brouhaha going on with image captions on the Main Page, Brian. I'd prefer to continue ignoring this whole mess, guys, so please continue to do whatever you want to do with captions, "pictured", etc., at least until the dust has settled (or if you'd rather not, then I'll ask for help at WT:MAIN.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TFA coordinators Just checking ... since August 25, there has been no rollover text except for the one with a caption, the one where someone added alt text (which became the rollover text, ick), and today's TFA, which David Levy just inserted rollover text for. I don't know what you guys want. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Architecture category

edit

@Crisco 1492:@Dank: Can we jointly agree that after the 31 October nomination of Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) we will not accept any further TFA in this category in 2015? The nominators concerned have ignored my previous hints that this area is becoming over-represented – and now one of them has the cheek to call me "heavy-handed"! That makes me bloody angry. The fact is that they have been given a lot of leeway. If the Witches' Sabbath and the Chinese artist bio in the non-specific dates run, the Art and Architecture category will be 3 or 4 over its fair year's share, with two months of the year still to run. It's only fair that we draw the line there; these editors don't have the special rights they seem to think they do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support whatever you guys want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Ceoil about his comment below, and the sense I get is that he took my "support" comment to be a support of everything Brian was saying. I'm sorry, Ceoil. Let me clarify ... I'm not supporting everything Brian is saying. I don't know what it's about, and I'm slammed for time. My position is that Brian has the responsibility for scheduling in September, he's been fair so far, and I'm going to support the calls he makes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I took it that my express "pulling" of the van Eyck, mentioned on you talk, in light of brian's comments was understood and would be actioned. Brian, as I mentioned at the time was away, so I approached you. The chain of events are pretty simple. I also note that that my request was about two weeks before I was described as one of "these people" here. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a misunderstanding here, and I think Brian's comments are unfair. I took his comments at the first nom to heart, and had thought it was pulled, but didnt follow through, officially, a human mistake. "these editors" is offensive, certainly not collegial. I'll take my toys, thank you very much. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. & now "I'll support whatever you guys want to do". WTF?? Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I'm uncomfortable with the direction SchroCat is taking this this one, and I'm offloading it. If either of you wants to follow up on discussions, great. If not, there are generally people at WT:MAIN happy to work on TFA stuff. I'm sorry it's come to this (the first time I've had to disengage permanently as a copyeditor in almost 8 years, that I recall). - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are over-reacting Dank, as I am not taking anything in any "direction". Having said that, I am unhappy with you opening the thread on the MoS talk page, pinging Tim riley for comment on the text, but not bothering to invite me to the same thread. That's not a terribly collegiate approach, as far as I am concerned, and it would have been much better to have pinged me in the first instance to discuss the thread, rather than opening separate and unconnected threads on the MoS page and my talk page, without cross-referencing the two. – SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a criticism of you as a Wikipedian or as a writer, but there are several things I'm not comfortable with. It will save time and bother for both of us if I stop copyediting your stuff. Brian, Chris and the guys who hang out at WT:MAIN are more than competent enough to help out with your TFAs. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "with the direction ..." to "this one", if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian: Great to see accountability and resosponsbility at work here as ever. The fact is: jaded; and I dont give a shit if the workload is overwleming; that doest give the right to charcterise, followed by...silence. People are voleering time, and you are currating. You have chosen to be high handed and remote, but its prob going to alienate.Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replying on your talk page, Ceoil. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brian and Chris, it would help if I could get a short response to the question ... I won't hold you to it, but it would help to know your thinking. In the rare cases where there's some history between an editor and me and I think it would be best to disengage, is it your preference to 1. step in and handle it? 2. let the guys at WT:MAIN and ERRORS handle the TFA for that day? or: 3. consider it my responsibility to train and vet someone to handle it, and if that doesn't work, then it's my responsibility to re-engage as best I can? - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again I think you have misread something here. I do not consider that we have any "history", and this has all come about because of a very minor disagreement about a very minor grammatical point. If you want to go off and not deal with any of my future nominations, that is entirely up to you, although I find it somewhat mystifying. – SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have history, you just don't know it because the way I deal with conflict on Wikipedia is to act no differently from when there's not conflict. Trust me, there's history, and I'm looking for a solution here. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to shame you or cause trouble for you, I'm just trying to move on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there has been conflict between us, then that is even more mystifying. There isn't any grief, conflict or history as far as I am concerned, and I have absolutely no idea where you have got the idea that there has been. – SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take it from the silence that, of the 3 options I gave, "step in and handle it" is out. I think in isolated cases, we could probably offload the job of vetting a TFA summary to the WP:ERRORS guys ... but in general, ERRORS tends to increase the volume around disputes rather than decrease it (which is the goal), so I don't want to think of that as my go-to option. I've noticed that Hylian Auree has done a really good job at FAC for WP:TROP, and I've invited her to take on Hurricane Hazel; if all goes well, I'll invite her to do more of those. I'll start combing through FAC archives to find someone who can step in as needed. Suggestions are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "silence" on this matter has been because I had no idea this discussion was proceeding until just now. I imagine that Ceoil's failed "ping" had more to do with the previous thread, and I have duly posted an appropriately apologetic reply on his talk page. I was not aware until now that you were asking for responses from me or Chris – sometimes a talkpage prompt is a better way of getting attention. All I can say is that, if for any reason you wish to detach yourself from a particular piece of blurb-writing, you are of course at liberty to use the sevices of a trusted colleague – preferably one capable of maintaining the high standards you have set. I will always be happy to oblige in an emergency. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I thought we were all watching this page, so my assumptions were all wrong. Thanks for the compliment. I'll use talk pages in the future. What makes the SchroCat problem hard is that ... I actually agree with him on what I think is probably the underlying problem here: he deserves to have someone knowledgeable vetting his stuff, someone who has a native grasp of his language and who thoroughly understands the wikiproject's standards ... and that's not me. I'm going to keep looking for someone who has served in a copyediting role that he and his colleagues are particularly comfortable with. Btw, Brian ... your name is one that pops into mind ... if you're comfortable handling SchroCat's copyediting needs at TFA, you're more than welcome to be that guy, I just assumed you didn't want the job. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Brian and Chris, just in case. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always worked well with SchroCat, and will be happy to assist in future in ironing out any problems at TFA. I can't imagine he and I disagreeing too vehemently or falling out. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, I'll let him know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I did reply on the talk page, and recommended deferring to the article writer(s). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, and I'm sure SchroCat appreciated it. Many thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

edit
Heh, that brings back memories, I loved Bewitched as a kid. No preference. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the list of availables. Nothing suggests itself, certainly no appropriate classical music. Perhaps I should try and get Lieutenant Kijé up to FA for next year, as its "Troika" movement is widely associated with snowy Christmases. For the time being, however, Bewitched might be our best bet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/Coordinators&oldid=693806324"