Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could people posting suggestions here please use the same formatting that is used in the main page blurbs? That is to say, (1) remove all endlines, (2) remove all ref tags (3) link the title to the article (4) remove all extraneous bolding (5) trim birth/death dates down to year only (6) remove all alternate names (7) trim down the length to roughly 1200 characters or less. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
There's a Featured Article I'd like to suggest for a specific date, but I've no idea how and this page isn't all that helpful on how to do so. Can anyone offer some help? The Clawed One (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Which one and what date? I'd be happy to estimate the points for you, and tell you how to nominate. And please be sure (it will say near the top of the talk page) that the article hasn't already run.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. The 10th anniversary of the game's release will be August 16th, the date I was going to nominate it for. Ah, also, I'm a very significant contributor the article, the article was promoted in May of this year, and the last time I suggested an FA for a date was in 2007 or before (not sure precisely when, it's been a while though). Hope all that helps. The Clawed One (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
My guess would be you get two points for a 10th anniversary, one for first TFA for you, three points total. What you need to do is make up a "blurb", such as you see on the request page. Simplest simply to cut and paste text from your article's lede into the format you see there, just use the same markup and delete the old text and save your effort to your sandbox. When you are ready, you can nominate by adding it to the TFA/R page. If you need help making the blurb, let me know. You are free to nominate any time that there is a vacancy, a lower point article, or an article that has attracted over 50 percent opposes on the nominations page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Are your questions rhetorical? You are a more experienced Wikipedian than I and surely know how to check the history and find out when we ran Washington DC. I get your point generally, and I would say that the Presidential Inauguration in Washington DC is of somewhat greater note than a parade on the South Side of Chicago. The eyes of the world were focused on 20001 on that day. They are not focused on 606whatever on August 8. I would not give a point to Manhattan on Thanksgiving Day. I'd say the South Side of Chicago would be a great article to run if the White Sox (ever) made the World Series again. Pasadena on New Years Day is tricker, I'd really want to give it some thought. I don't have anything against the article, I just think it shouldn't get a date relevance point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
O.K. DC it seems was given a point for date relevance for a subject not even mentioned in its article. I thought there was a general rule about finding the subject in the article. I meant Broadway (New York City) BTW. I just did a page move so that Broadway Avenue (Saskatoon) is not the main Broadway Avenue. Surely on Thanksgiving such an article would be given a high priority if it were FA even though the Macy's parade is not as large as the Bud Billiken Parade. Maybe even Midtown Manhattan or Upper West Side would be date-relevant on Thanksgiving since the parade runs through these two areas on Broadway. I guess the fairer comparison would be if Midtown Manhattan and Upper West Side were one article and the Macy's parade fell on a day that is not important to the rest of the nation but was as important a parade as it is, would that article have a high priority on that day. That is sort of what we have here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec x 3)Is this Chicago thingie on national TV even in the three network era, part of one of the most beloved Christmas movies of all time? I'm allergic to straw, Tony.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In truth, I would even give Manhattan priority on Puerto Rican Day Parade. That thing screws up traffic all day. However, just because white people have not heard of the Bud Billiken Parade and do not love it in their hearts does not mean it is not the second largest parade in the nation. For two years, I lived at 35th and 5th in Manhattan (Macy's parade ends at 34th and 6th/Broadway. I enjoy both traditions. All I am saying is that this is a big day for the South Side. Next year the article will have a higher priority because it will be over two years old, but the parade will be the 81st annual, giving it lower date-relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the 81st the 80th anniversary of the first one? Note that you can't get more than one point for date relevance unless the article is about the entity having the anniversary, so we're discussing one point, tops.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The parade started in 1929. This is the 80th anniversary. Normal TFAR counting means this is the year for two points if date relevance is given. In 2010, it would be the 81st annual. Raul is a New Yorker and I lived there for five years. Bud Billiken would be like the PR Day parade in Manhattan on a slightly larger scale with national broadcasts on English language television networks. It impacts the city a great deal and nationally it is known by people of the race/ethnicity that celebrate it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I like to think of myself as a knowledgeable person, but I've never heard of it. Tony, the multiple point anniversaries only apply in situations where the anniversary is that of the subject of the article. That is, say, John Calvin and his anniversary earlier in the month. It does not apply to an article, say, on Calvanism, because that concept is not 500 years old this month. This is the way we've done it, Tony, if you want a rule change, propose it, but please make sure it is airtight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) - perhaps it was special? Comparing the Inauguration, with many people watching world-wide, to a parade that few outside of Illinois have heard of seems slightly odd to me... Anyway, instead of needless drama here, how about you nom the article and let consensus decide the points?—Ed(Talk • Say no to drama)07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
He nommed it at one point, replacing Sirius three days before Sirius's requested date. South Side was replaced a day later by the video game article. If I recall correctly, WDC got one point date relevance, two points as a two year FA, and one point no prior FA's by the nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I nommed it at 1/3 points. A single discussant opined it was worth one point. It was replaced in a matter of hours. I feel consensus may rule it is one point, but have never had an article removed by voice of a single discussant before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's the diff. You claimed one and said you'd like to claim three but were being conservative. The video game still would have been within its rights to remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
List of non-TFA Featured Articles?
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
There's also a list of those which have appeared here
Thanks; it works (clear the cache after changing monobook is important). This should be very helpful the next time something like the 40th anniversary of the 1st moonlanding comes along and there's nothing to mark it. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that there is Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page, it would be extremely easy to create Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page; a single edit to the {{#if: {{{maindate|}}} ... }} in {{ArticleHistory}} and then waiting a week or so for the pages to all purge themselves during server downtime, and the category would be populated. This might be a bit more convenient than the monobook way, and it would provide a precise number of non-TFA featured articles, which would be nice. (That number can't be gotten with {{#expr: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles}} - {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page}} }} , because the latter category contains a lot of former featured articles so this subtraction would underestimate the number of current FAs that haven't been featured yet.)
Either way, it's not super-important... but creating a category like this would be easy and I don't see any drawbacks, so why not? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
CSS is formatting information, JS is executable script content. The browser surround is different, so you can't put CSS in your .js file (or vice versa). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you use monobook skin (in preferences/appearance), and did you clear your cache (like it says in the box at the top of your monobook.css file)? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Is there any thought on expanding the template to cover the next ninety days, or just repealing the time limit? It is very underutilized.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless someone objects this weekend (wikitime), I'll expand it to 90 days and see if that works for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Joseph W. Tkach
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
There is some discrepancy on the prospective point total for Joseph W. Tkach and I am ready to air it out here. I believe he would be a 4-pointer on September 23 (2 for age, 1 for diversity and 1 for anniversary). The diversity point seems to be at issue and I do not understand why.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Tony, for diversity we go strictly by the categories at WP:FA, if the article's category has 49 or fewer articles in it, we give it a bonus point, such as the Birkett article on law that just got nominated. It isn't very complicated, and it is fairly mechanical. And we had a religious leader (Calvin) on July 10, so it doesn't get a point for main page representation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted that. The other categories still look good. I think we're safe for a while, though one of them is up to 44.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Feature lists on the main page
Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments16 people in discussion
I recently asked SandyGeorgiaand Raul654 if there was a process by which a featured list could be nominated for the main page, to which the answer was essentially no. However, I am particularly interested in getting list of cutaneous conditions displayed on the main page because I (1) think it's a great list, and (2) would like to increase the community's exposure to dermatology-related content. Therefore, I wanted to know if either (A) an exception could be made in the nomination process, allowing for this list to be nominated, or else (B) if I could offer up a new proposal, somewhere, that feature list nominations be considered for the main page? ---kilbad (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of good reasons in general not to have featured lists on the main page, at least in the TFA spot. In general FAs are a different animal and perhaps better and harder to achieve than FLs (I expect there are some disagreements on that!) Let's just say a different animal. Also a big backlog of FAs.
Your specific list has some major pros and cons. A lot of meat in the article/list. Very good use of the list format, comprehensive as all get out. Very definitely part of "the best of Wikipedia." On the other hand this list would be open to a lot of abuse, vandalism, and "man that's gross" type comments. The picture question would definitely be interesting. Acne vulgaris is kind of hip in a teenage sort of way, and black hairy tongue is certainly interesting, but most of the other pix ... all I can say is "man that's gross." Which makes me feel guilty for using such a lame argument for keeping this off the main page, but I'd guess I'm not alone in this squeamishness.
I'll suggest getting some support here to just put it on the request page, (and then expecting it to be shot down because it's against the rules), but take your shot if you get support here - what's the worst that can happen? So let me give
Comment I think we should keep it on talk page here. After all, the point of this venture is to make recommendations to Raul, and he's a lot more likely to be persuaded by argument here than putting it on the request page. A FL is not eligible at present; we are limited to FAs only, and Raul's the FA Director.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Smallbones is correct in most respects. There are currently 1160 FAs that have not been on the main page (±3), and I don't think it would go down well to have a space taken up by a list with little warning. It is accepted and almost certainly true that FAs are harder to achieve than FLs; in particular, the two aspects of FAs that make them much harder to write than FLs are a) the requirement to cover all aspects of a subject thoroughly as opposed to drawing up a complete, referenced list (although the proposed list is quite impressive, and certainly difficult to keep comprehensive ); and b) the requirement for professional-quality prose throughout, as opposed to three or four paragraphs in modern FLs (although once again, the proposed list's lead surpasses most others', and is very well-written). The one thing with which I disagree is the "sqeamishness" factor. The picture issue notwithstanding, if we can have Gropecunt Lane on the Main Page, than this can't be worse. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I was notified of this discussion... but I personally have no problem with FL's appearing on the main page, but not in the FA section. Theoretically, an FL can be written in a day, there is zero chance of an FA being written in a day. The difference in quality is significant. Unforunately, I don't see any place to put FL's without redesigning the entire front page, and that's been tried. The only other option would be to have one day a week where 2 or 3 FL's are entered into the section currently used for FA's.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Something like a special FL day would, I think, not be good for readers; it's the sort of thing that is more interesting and meaningful to editors than readers. Most readers, I would imagine, do not know what an FL is or what the difference between it and an FA is, and they would probably be confused to see things looking different all of a sudden. (Granted, maybe that's not a bad thing—who knows, maybe some readers will click some links to find out what "featured list" and "featured article" mean and that might inspire them to become editors—I'm just saying.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a special FL day... and I do think there would be value to the readers as they are still well written and important. Another option, would be to usurp the DYK space.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!22:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, although I daresay that DYK wouldn't like that (unless we keep DYK and use hooks from only featured lists). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
What is that page of issues that are frequently raised and defeated (can't remember)? This has come up many times, and IMO it's still a non-starter. Featured lists do not receive the same scrutiny that FAs do, there are still hundreds of FAs waiting to appear on the main page, and I'm unclear what the benefit to our readers will be of seeing lists instead of articles (that link to lists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
From what I've observed the FL standards have grown more stringent in recent months, so I think it's unfair to treat them as inherently inferior to FAs. That said, as I noted below, there are several potential benefits from featuring a list(s) on the main page; namely, increased interest in featured lists and lists in general, which would almost surely benefit the featured content as a whole in the form of additional reviewers and participants. –Juliancolton | Talk22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Sandy is also referring to the fact that the featured list process is simply less well known than that of featured articles and so doesn't receive as much exposure or reviewers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think featuring this list on the main page is an excellent idea. It's important to introduce readers to all aspects of Wikipedia, and lists are generally under-advertised. You have my support. –Juliancolton | Talk22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment For reasons that Sandy and others have brought up, I don't think lists should be regularly featured on the main page. However, if we can find a truly exemplary (and interesting) list, I think we should put it on, (after a final quality check and all that). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose unless exception circumstances are present (the coolest list evar!!). In general lists are much less interesting for readers than articles. In a nutshell, I don't think we should subject our readers to them for the sake of rewarding list creators. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
We have thousands of featured lists, why not advertise them? There's no point in hiding content because some might find it boring. –Juliancolton | Talk01:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment How hard can a main page change be? Just compress the current FP box to half the screen and put a FL box in the other one. Or an "Assorted Other Featured Material" or something to work in Sounds/Portals/Topics/etc. Staxringoldtalkcontribs03:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Sandy. We have hundreds of FA's waiting their turn. Why should a FL usurp that space? Just because they are termed "Featured"? Go take the space from the picture, then. If you put a FL in the FA space, you open the door to doing it again and again, it is a very poor precedent, the TFA/R criteria aren't set up for it, and we have no idea if we'd wind up in voting contests for FA versus FL. Don't go here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear; I was proposing that the lists take the space from the pictures, if the lists must appear main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Support. Featured lists, as with any of our best content, deserve to be shown on the main page. I do not support a featured list taking the place of a featured article, unless the day comes when we have run out of FA candidates. Ri-i-ight. So I support the addition of a subordinate new main page FL section that readers can scroll down to view, one that fits next to or below the featured picture. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I think it would be a good feature, other times I don't. As Julian said, it would be nice to get some additional attention to FL, which would come about from being on the main page, but I don't think there will be too many people who want to read a list of sports statistics and episode lists, which take up the majority of FL's content. I don't wish to turn this into a FL vs FA thing, but FAs are generally more interesting to read than FLs. Lists generally appeal to people only interested in lists, and most people aren't. Some of what Sandy says I agree with. If we're not talking about taking from TFA's space, then it's not fair to discuss whether or not FLs go through the same scrutiny as FA, Both go through a process, both are only promoted when consensus says so. That said, I do concede that it can be harder to achieve an FA than an FL. Anyway, right now the main page has no space for FL and I don't think that FL should be taking away any of the space of FA, FP, DYK or anything else. If the main page gets redesigned and there is available space for FL, then sure, otherwise it's probably best not to. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Support to occasionally (maybe once or twice a month) to feature a list instead of an article. I say occasionally because there is not as much diversity in featured lists as in featured articles; most featured lists are discographies, lists of tallest buildings in a city, sports-related lists and etc. Pantherskin (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Rock Springs massacre
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Basically I was wondering if its ok to replace one of the 1-point articles with
Rock Springs massacre for September 2, which is the anniversary of the event. I estimate four points but could be wrong, as I have never done this before. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Two points because it was promoted two or more years ago, one point because the date is relevant to the article topic, one point for not having an FA on the Main page and being the a significant contributor to article, that's it. I don't think the subject matter is a basic topic, as no one knows about this event, let alone twelve year olds. But it loses the two because of the Rosewood massacre. I pretty much resigned myself to never seeing this article on the Main Page some time ago, so it's no big deal. Not something that I am going to spend a lot of time worrying about.--IvoShandor (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Why give up so easily? First, two points very often makes it through. Second, by my calculations about 85 percent of articles that have been nominated make it through either on a first or subsequent try, or by a Raul selection. Third, Raul selects an eclectic bunch of articles. Wait for a vacancy and give it a shot!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This isn't a bit of advice I'd usually give, but (assuming Raul is away) this might actually be one of the rare occasions when asking Jimbo to use his founder flag would actually be the best course of action. This kind of "something needs to be done urgently, but none of the people who'd normally do it are available" situation is exactly what the God-King role was intended for. (Adding) Or if Karanacs is about, she has admin powers and presumably knows better than Jimbo the issues and technicalities involved in TFA selection. – iridescent09:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's stepping on Raul's toes. And I saw Julian's post, and it predated what I think was Raul's departure by several days. You can check that by comparing the timestamp on his post against Raul's contributions. Think well before you do such a thing! Raul has managed this process quite well for five years, he presumably knows what he is doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I would hesitate to do this one. A year ago, we made an exception for the Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal because its bicentennial could only be pinned down to a month, not a day. This is a recent work, (I assume you mean a nom next July) and it is a far less significant anniversary. I'd lean against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Women's Equality Day in the U.S.
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Except it only scores 1 point for the anniversary, so it will fail "the new request is replacing another request with lower points". So I leave it here. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Margaret Fuller Ossoli, more commonly known as Margaret Fuller, (May 23, 1810 – July 19, 1850) was a journalist, critic and women's rights activist associated with the American transcendental movement. She was the first full-time female book reviewer in journalism. Her book Woman in the Nineteenth Century is considered the first major feminist work in the United States. Fuller was an advocate of women's rights and, in particular, women's education and the right to employment. She also encouraged many other reforms in society, including prison reform and the emancipation of slaves in the United States. Many other advocates for women's rights and feminism, including Susan B. Anthony, cite Fuller as a source of inspiration. Many of her contemporaries, however, were not supportive, including her former friend Harriet Martineau, who said that Fuller was a talker rather than an activist. Shortly after Fuller's death her importance faded; the editors who prepared her letters to be published, believing her fame would be short-lived, were not concerned about accuracy and censored or altered much of her words before publication.
We actually got a vote for waiting from Binksternet. So I removed it from the list of candidates. Anyone else? I fear driving the candidate nominators crazy for a week. So if you are confident, please list it yourself. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it would be wonderful if a choice, besides the dreary, predictable academic one were selected. Probably no chance though. —mattisse (Talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are excellent suggestions. This dreary academic teaches a section of her children's literature class on Nancy Drew and feminism. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I see only four points for Headbomb's article. No similar six months (no atomic or subatomic particles), no prior TFA Headbomb, and date relation for Gellmann's birthday. The other points he claimed are misinterpretations of the rules, but it is not a big deal, we have never replaced a four point article. I'll drop a note on his talk page when I get through my stack of virtual paperwork which has built up in the past 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
They are misinterpretations in as much as they follows the spirit rather than the letter of the rules. Physics and Astronomy shouldn't be lumped together in the same category as much as Law and Politics & Government aren't. For the vital article thing, the list of "vital" article makes very little sense from a physicist's point of view. If neutrinos are there, then quarks should be there too. It's as if you considered Chemical element to be less important than manganese. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I know, but in this little bailiwick, we can't decide whether quark should be a vital article or not. All we know is that it presently isn't. And we have no influence over the categories at WP:FA. We only apply the rules, generally fairly mechanically, and make recommendations to Raul, which he can take or disregard.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Featured article (tangentially) related to news item
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi all,
the White-winged Fairy-wren has a rare subspecies on Barrow Island (Western Australia), which is in the news in Oz today as a result of this item. Problem is, (1) it has been on the main page in a DYK section (2) it is a bird, and we've just had a bird, Emperor Penguin on the main page, and both were ones I was instrumental in getting promoted and I have had oodles on the mainpage already. So I slung it up here as a feeler to see what Raul and other folks thought. (i.e. somewhat topical and environmental etc.) Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
My goodness, what a beautiful bird! The DYK appearance is totally irrelevant: only TFA appearances count on that rule. But the Emperor Penguin rules all as far as I see it. -3 points for the next month! +1 for date of promotion, but no other positive points that I can see. Maybe after Sept 1, when the 1 pointer drops off the list, you could try for a new low (so to speak). A couple of 0's have gone through. One never knows, do one? But I can't say that it has a good chance. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it presently -2, it will become -1 and eventually 1 as we go further away from the date of the Penguin. Unless Opus goes FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have just added a TFA request for this article. I am aware I need to remove the lowest ranked request but is there an archiving process I need to follow to do this or do I just remove the text? Sorry if I have got anything wrong. -- Mattinbgn\talk03:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Do you think that things that have been bumped but had a date that has not yet been scheduled should appear with some sort of asterisk below the top 5 lines of the chart? I think Dwarf planet got shafted in a sense and feel Fountain of Time may be lost in the shuffle. It probably gets hard to keep track of the support levels for everything that got bumped. The bumped section could have an additional column sayin bumped by article x.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Similar things have been discussed before and not adopted, generally because it erodes the five-article rule. I'd say two things. First, I think we can assume pretty safely that Raul follows the request page and discussion here reasonably closely. So he's aware of the articles that don't make it. Since the sole purpose of these pages is to have a process to make recommendations to him, I think that the additional column wouldn't help much, and might prejudice people against an article (how dare you bump Harry Potter, I'll show you!). I'd have no objection, though, to seeing someone start a archival chart of nominations, points, support/oppose level, and what became of the nomination (passed through and used, passed through and not used, bumped by article X (y points), withdrawn, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah ignore me, didn't see he'd already scheduled it. (FWIW I think he's made a mistake with that one, as "start of WW2" is such a significant anniversary.) – iridescent12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Do the pending requests get taken into consideration?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I know Pinkerton (album) was kicked off the requests list but I added it back to the pending requests. Does it stand a chance of going onto the front page even if it never makes it onto the requests again? Spiderone12:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That is fine. Raul has often run articles that didn't make it through. I would say upwards of 85% of articles that are requested but don't run make it onto the main page within a year. Based on my 14 months experience here. No guarantees though. Also suggest you watchlist this page so you'll know when Raul schedules that date and you can jump back in with your nomination. The fact that you nominated it seems to give it a boost, Raul seems to very rarely pick articles that were in the template but were never nominated.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
September 1
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, you could drop a note on Raul's talk page. Also, think about the fact that we are going to run out of 9/11 flight articles one of these days and maybe these articles should be held for major anniversaries like the 10th coming up in a couple of years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I was in the Pentagon when AA077 hit. I don't personally enjoy being reminded of that terrible day every time the anniversary comes around, but I can understand the desire of others to memoralize the tragedy. I don't know if it's necessary to have a memorial main page feature about it every year, but if enough people feel it is appropriate, then no objection from me. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I was okay with running UA93 last year and okay with running something related for tenth anniversary, but rather not do that every year. For this year, I have requested on Raul's talk page that he run something unrelated on the eleventh, such as one of the species featured articles. The 9/11 article will still be linked in the anniversaries section of the main page. (p.s. it appears that VegitaU still checks Wikipedia and edits occasionally) --Aude (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It should not always be a 9/11 article. Besides, we have only four planes, and even if the building articles are brought up to FA, a limited number of those. In general, I think we should very rarely reserve a date for a specific article topic every year. We do have other portions of the main page that can take up the slack, such as On this Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I think there should be a point deduction for co-WP:GT or co-WP:FT articles. I think it should be something like if an article from the same co-topical subject has been on the main page in the last year -1, last 6 months -2, last 3 months -3. For example, two athletes on the main page close together is a problem. Two athletes from the same team in the same sport on the main page close together is even worse. It is not inconceivable that several articles at WP:CHIFTD become featured. Saying one is a bridge another is a sculpture, another is music venue and another is an open air art gallery would allow them all to be on the main page very proximally. This is wrong. Even though many articles that have now been topics have been on the main page. Star Wars, saffron, etc., I think they should be spaced. Suppose I took both Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims to featured status. Having them both on the main page close together is worse than having one of them on the main page and a cricket player on the main page. An adjustment for co-topical article needs to be made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but co-topical subjects may not be part of a GT or FT? Doesn't that punish people for GT or FT? Couldn't we address your concerns more easily through an adjustment of the similarity points?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I generally support this type of effort but think the devil is in the details. Specific proposed rules are needed to properly judge. BTW I don't think that too many cricket players, too close together, is a major problem; but everybody has got their own list. Mine is too many video games, wrestling matches, and hurricanes. 1 of those per year should be enough. Actually I like hurricanes compared to the others, so even 2 articles on hurricanes per year would be ok with me. Also no articles on Wolverines ever. Sorry if I'm getting carried away, but specific rules are needed to properly judge. Smallbones (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The easiest and least subjective would be using GT and FT as an arbiter. Other rules get subjective. I don't think there is a Samuel Johnson topic, so this might not solve the problem that I want to solve. We need to do something though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This is already covered in similarity points: no adjustments needed, and further tweaking will only discourage featured topics. I don't see the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there any indication that any of the current deductions has effected the editorial efforts in any way. If you would read the issue, what I am saying is that there is currently no deduction other than being in the came general FA category. Not all athletes are equally similar. I think you are saying that you do not understand why certain subjects in the same general FA category are more similar than others based on your response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to define it. I guess "would be part of a small GT or FT" might do it, but there might be a good counter example that shows that won't work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this entire concept. Important topics such as Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Johnson, evolution, History of science etc. should be represented multiple times on the main page. For instance 2009 has both the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth (back in Feb) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (coming in November). A rule like what is being proposed here would make it more difficult to honor both dates, and that is just silly. The similarity rule is more than bad enough in terms of making it difficult to honor important anniveraries. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
October 1 & 10
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Does anyone know if any China-related articles are lined up for October 1 (National Day in the PRC) or October 10 (National Day in Taiwan)? I'm asking because I'm thinking of suggesting Chinese classifier for October 3 (a pan-Chinese holiday; because October 1 and 10 are political, this article wouldn't really be suitable for either of them) once there's room in TFA/R. Of course, if there is already something Chinese lined up for October 1 or 10 then I wouldn't nominate this one for the 3rd, but I figured I'd at least check. (also, of course, if something with a stronger date relevance wants the 3rd, then I also would look for a new date.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No technical reason not to. But accept that it won't always be done quickly. Although--could we get a bot, along the lines of what they do at RfA? We'd probably have to separate things out into supports, opposes, neutrals, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Right now were in a bit of a lull because we're scheduled up and people seem mostly content to await a vacancy. I have no objection. Obviously put a warning in that people need to check against the actual discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me right now. I'll suggest that we have a discussion here in 2-4 weeks to see if it should be made permanent. Smallbones (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this addition is irritating, wasn't a great idea, and should be eliminated for the same reasons it wasn't employed at FAC: all supports and opposes aren't equal, and this adds to page maintenance. For example, there are two Opposes on Johnson right now they have very little relativity to anything related to how TFAs are chosen. Please eliminate this unnecessary addition to the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No further comments? I still don't think this was a good addition. Normally, with such weak discussion prior to adding it, I would just go ahead and delete it myself, but since Johnson is up, with 6 opposes, it doesn't feel right for me to remove this make-work addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
All three interested parties came to an agreement to add it. It seems to be working and it makes things easier to figure out. It is not a make-work addition in truth because it makes watching the page easier.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's about time to do the 2-4 week discussion (see above). I don't mind it at all and think it helps sometimes, other people seem to like it, SandyGeorgia seems to be the only one with a complaint. The "Make work" part should lead us to ask - Who actually does the up-dating? and What do they think? I would update, but it always seems to be done already. If none of the updaters complain, I'll suggest keeping it, but I'm fairly neutral. Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Almost none of the current entries are correct (nominator declaration counts as support), discussions aren't "votes" so the table is misleading (will Raul even consider an "I've never heard of him" oppose, which is irrelevant to main page selection?), and there are many more valuable ways for DaBomb to be spending his time besides trying to keep up a chart tally that has little meaning. For these same reasons, TTT's proposals to add tally tables at FAC were rejected ...they were rarely accurate, nominators used them to misrepresent, and they just created extra work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would not feel that I made a cogent argument in support of a change if it did not attract a vociferous opposition from Sandy. Unlike running around at FAC and maintaining 5o tables at a time on individual FAC discussion pages, this is a very centralized table. We all know that the counts are not the sole determinant of TFA inclusion. Surely, Raul ways each argument and makes his own judgment. I just think the tally shows what is going on. Anyone who comes to the page right now sees there is substantive debate about the Johnson articles TFAness. They can see it very clearly and know that if they want to way in on this issue they should. It is much easier than scrolling and counting supports for all the articles. I think in time you will see this causes borderline nominees to have more opinions stated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with TTT here. I appreciate that it means more work, but it highlights the candidates that are up for debate (if something has 1 support and 10 opposes, or 15 supports with no opposition, there's no particular point going to the effort of learning enough about the subject to have an opinion. It doesn't need to be completely accurate, just enough to give a ballpark idea of what is and isn't contentious. – iridescent13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing on this page as 1 support and 10 opposes, because of the rules for removing nominations. And because of those rules, it does need to be accurate: currently, most of them aren't. TTT, please refrain from personalizing discussions and using peacockery like "vociferous". If you're so concerned about this tally, please review and update all of them to correctly reflect the rules stated on the page, where nominator is an assumed support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(coming in late) I've never replaced a nom here, so I'm not the biggest expert on how it all works...but judging by my reading of the rules, a nom doesn't need "50% opposes after adjusting for the value of each person's vote" to be removed, it just needs 50% opposes regardless of how good or bad they are (excluding, of course, blatant votestacking by sockpuppets or canvassing). For that, the table is useful for someone wanting to skim the page and see what slots might be available. It's probably not useful for Raul deciding what to promote, as Sandy points out, because other factors go into it...but just for removing/replacing nominations, if my understanding of the rules is correct, it seems like it could be helpful. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
October 15 for Fight Club
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I improved Fight Club (film) to Featured Article status, and I would like to have it appear on the Main Page on October 15, which will be the tenth anniversary of the film's theatrical release. It's my first time making a request, and so far, I have added the article to the "Potential upcoming requests" box. There are five requests, none which are removable, so I assume it would be okay to insert the film article once Samuel Johnson's early life is removed? I have a blurb being drafted at User:Erik/Sandbox in the meantime. Can someone let me know if I'm on the right track so far? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Better wording for footnote on date relevence point
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
One of the most common sources of confusion over appropriate points for FAR nominations concerns the date relevance point. Nominators frequently assume that if a particular date is appropriate for a particular article then the nomination must be eligible for a date relevance point. However, the consensus interpretation of the rule has always been that the point should only be awarded if there is a direct connection between a topic covered significantly in the article and the date. The current footnote does say that, but given how common this particular misunderstanding seems to be, further clarification might be in order. The current footnote says:
"For example Earth on Earth Day, a birthday, or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article."
I would suggest something like the following:
"For example Earth on Earth Day, a birthday, or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article. Please note that often a particular date may be appropriate for a particular article without that article being eligible for a date relevancy point on that date. For example it might be appropriate to nominate an article on some aspect of Chinese culture for the date of an important Chinese holiday, but such a nomination would only be eligible for a date relevancy point if the article discusses that particular holiday itself or a topic directly connected to it."
Note that the article Earth doesn't mention Earth Day. This is the old "direct vs. indirect date relevance" question, which has never been properly resolved (but should be). I'm in favor of 1 point for indirect date relevance. Certainly the current wording could be better, and any changes will be tricky. Smallbones (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I support Rusty's rewording (especially since it was my nom that prompted the latest iteration of this discussion!). It could probably be trimmed a bit, but the gist seems right. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If that could be trimmed, I might consider supporting, but would have to see what it says. Generally, all discussions are subject to consensus, so we should avoid instruction creep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
How about:
"For example the birthday of a person or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article. Note that an article may be appropriate for a date without being eligible for this point. For example an article on some aspect of Chinese culture might be appropriate for an important Chinese holiday, but to be eligible for this point the article must discuss a topic directly connected to the holliday."
It is reasonably short but I think it would forstall at least some of the arguments we see to constantly be having over this point. At the very least it would provide Wehwalt with ammunition to cut the argument off quickly :) In my mind the probolem with allowing this point for indirect connections is that the majority of nominations will be for days that have some such connection (like the Chinese linguistics article on a Chinese holliday, or an American history article for July 4th) and what is the value in having a point that most of the nominations will qualify for? I think it is much better to reserve the point for when there is a more direct connection like say an article about Lincoln or Washington for Presidents day or an article about someone who signed the American declaration of independance for July 4. Note that Earth would still qualify for Earthday because even though Earth doesn't discusse Earth Day there is still a direct connection between the subject of the article and the object of the holliday. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, the appropriateness of an article for a particular day, whilst not winning an extra point, may encourage extra support, thereby increasing the chances of the nomination remaining on the page and ultimately being selected. BencherliteTalk20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed... I often see people here getting into big fights over points even when people are supporting them. But support is really more important than points. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Correction of proposed text and editing for length and spelling:
"For example the birthday of a person or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article. An article may be appropriate for a date without being eligible for these points. For example an article on some aspect of Chinese culture might be appropriate for an important Chinese holiday, but to be eligible for this point the article must discuss a topic directly connected to the holiday."
footnote should actually be on the bold heading a line above where it is now.
I don't think it clears up the direct/indirect questions, e.g. the article on Handel's opera Agrippina (opera) certainly discusses a topic directly connected to Handel's birthday (George, himself); but I don't think we gave any points for that. Smallbones (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
How about:
Indirect: one point if there is a obvious and major connection between the article and an event, observance, or anniversary on the proposed dates, such as Earth on Earth Day, Washington D.C. on Inauguration Day, and an article about an opera on the composer's death anniversary.
Direct: the number of points stated below (insert chart) for the anniversary of a event of major significance to the subject of the article, such as (if a person) date of birth, death, beginning or ending of tenure in the most significant office held by the subject, or (if not a person) date of discovery, publication, or first performance. Not all articles will have such dates.
Agree on the thought - but this isn't your suggested wording, is it? Let me try:
Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)
Insert Chart
Notes
For example Earth on Earth Day. One point is awarded if there is an obvious and major connection between the article and the date. 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. No points might be awarded if there is only a minor relation between the date and the article, e.g. Chinese language on Chinese New Years.
I'd suggest leaving out the "minor relation" sentence, as it is likely to lead to more arguments. I'm not thrilled about "significant coverage", I kinda suspect we've seen articles where there have been mentions in the lede in order to try to inflate points at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
How about trying something like this:
Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)
2. One point is awarded if there is an obvious and signficant connection between the article and the date, for example Earth on Earth Day. 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. Note that just because an article might be appropriate for a date, for example Chinese language on Chinese New Years, does not mean a point should be awarded.
I am not 100% sure I am following you, but if you are worried about the point deduction for similiar articles. I don't think you have a problem. Not even with the generous definition of similarity used here could an article on a highway be considered similar to an article on a natural disaster. The fact that the disaster happens to be in the same state the highway runs through is pretty much immaterial. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd leave it up. I don't see a problem. They just happen to impact the same area. No similarity deduction, just a matter for the judgment of the community and Raul.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree, as the one who (presumably) prompted this. I personally don't like having two articles about the same area in quick succession, unless there's a very good reason (a pair of 100th anniversaries, say) and consequently will oppose one of the two, but that's purely my personal opinion, not any kind of policy. I support the earthquake one over the road one because we have quite a lot of road TFAs and not many earthquakes, and because I think more of the general readers will find the earthquake one interesting. – iridescent14:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
With Raul as the gatekeeper, he makes the decision. If we think both articles are worthy, no problem recommending both and then leaving it up to him, for which he earns the big bucks, doesn't he? Right?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed change to footnote for date relevance point
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
Based on previous discussion on this page the following change is proposed to text explaining the date relevancy point. The proposed new text would be:
Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)[1]
^One point is awarded if there is an obvious and significant connection between the article and the date, for example Earth on Earth Day. 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. Note that just because an article might be appropriate for a date, for example Chinese language on Chinese New Years, that does not mean a point should be awarded.
I'll suggest that an eighth support would make a consensus (maybe even seven will do), and that then it should be implemented. The current batch of requests all have only 1 date point, so there should be no problem of comparing apples to oranges using the new and old methods. With Nov. 15 and Nov. 24 there might be multiple date point requests, so it might be better to make the change before these are requested. It would also be a good idea to schedule a review of whether the new footnote works as expected - say the first week of December? Smallbones (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I was planning to wait until tonight (U.S. Pacific coast timezone) and if no-one expressed opposition I was going to claim consensus and implement the change. I think that plan should be consistent with your request. I don't really anticipate a big "changeover" issue because the proposed change really just clarifies the way we have been interpreting the current rule for quite some time (see the October 3 nomination under [2] for one among many such discussions). The goal of this change is not to change the way points actually end up being awarded but rather reduce the amount of arguing that results from nominators misunderstanding (or at least not interpreting the same way regular contributors to this page do) the rule. The fact that this amounts to a clarification rather than a rule change presumably explains the lack of opposition (knock on wood). Although if someone did want to oppose the change they would probably argue that the change represents codifying a certain interpretation rather than just a clarification. Rusty Cashman (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree, I don't have time to fix it now but suggest someone fix it. If it is still not fixed this afternoon I will take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk)
I'd leave it as is, unless Torsodog insists. Since the replaced article was for the same date, it's clear that it would be replaced next. More of a quirk in the wording of point 2 than anything else. Smallbones (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know how all this stuff works, so I'll leave it up to the experts to make the decision. For what it is worth, however, I will say that I was excited to have a chance to put the first ever article relating to Japanese baseball on the main page. If I could prolong that chance, obviously that would be preferable. --TorsodogTalk18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's your call. If you want it back, we'll put it back in. But given that there is a higher point article, also on sports, seeking the same date, you might do better to renominate your article for the date of the closing of the period, if there is such a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll just renom later. You guys will probably see me again when the period closes allllll they way on March 1st. Four months gives me a bit of time to kill :) --TorsodogTalk19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
October 13th FA
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Raul has not missed yet. And if he was a few minutes late, would the sky fall? But it has never happened. Give him a break.
How many points would this be?
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I want to put Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel up at WP:TFAR for November 28, but I'm unsure of how many points it will get. It would be the first time I've made a request there, although another article I nominated at FAC has featured on the main page. It has date relevance in that it's the 77th anniversary of the first episode. I'm not sure what points it will get for its subject matter though. It's a radio series, there is only one other similar article at FA, and that's Hitchhiker's Guide, but then I don't know if it falls under "radio", in which case Mutual Broadcasting System for October 29 may have an impact, or whether it would fall under "Media", in which case it could scupper all chances of it appearing. How many points do you guys think it would be, and is it worth nominating? Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I count 1 for the 77th anniversary. The diversity point would refer to the category "media" which is not underrepresented. The "first time on TFAR" point refers to any TFAR, so there's no point there. The + or - points for "similar articles" can be tricky, but I'd have to spend some time looking at what's been on. I might say articles on "radio shows" would be similar, in which case you might get some points, but others might say "broadcast or audio/video shows" would be similar, in which case you might lose points. I don't think Mutual Radio Network is really very similar. Much as I'd love to, I won't argue that the Marx Bros. are basic subject matter. My best guess, so far, is 1 point. Smallbones (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Note that if any TFA runs that you are a significant contributor to, you don't get a first time point after that, even if the article is a Raul selection and didn't come through TFA/R. The idea of that point is to feature the work of people whose work has not appeared main page, not to give everybody a free point to use. Good luck with the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Blurbs
Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion
Raul once put a helpful post here about how to write the proposed blurbs; I can't find it in archives (anyone?), but we should keep it prominently displayed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, it is on the request page under "Suggested formatting", and we have been referring people to it when needed. I wonder if we should add that alt text should be added to the proposed main page image and also all images in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt!
The request should have a blurb that uses the same formatting as the ones used on the main page, specifically: there are no endlines, reference tags, alternate names, or extraneous bolding, birth/death dates are trimmed down to year only, there is a bolded link the title to the article, and a total length of roughly 1200 characters or less.
Needs clarification for all readership:
What's an endline?
typo ... bolded link to the title of the article?
Does the 1200 characters include spaces ... this should be clear to the uninitiated.
I don't know what an endline is, formatting is not my strong suit here (I tend to borrow formatting) as for the rest, clearly the 1200 includes spaces. The typos can be corrected boldly. I think it would be fine to add "No fair use images" without the need for a major discussion, because it is wikipolicy not to use fair use images on the main page. Especially when the article is a long time from its FAC, or it underwent FAC before images were so intensively checked, I think there's a need.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Maybe we could change that to "format as one paragraph" since people obviously aren't getting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Being the impatient and undisciplined type, I went for it now. I also added something about alt text (which SandyGeorgia was good enough to remind me about on my talk page). Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest omitting the image markup, which may cause incredible confusion to potential nominators. Perhaps just say "The image formatting should be identical to those presently used for TFA images, and shall include alternative text.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the "Ack" mean "Acknowledge" (yes) or "Aaack!" (no)? I'm of two minds about specifying markup, as it does clutter. Another possibility is to give a handy pointer to the markup for today's example. I did that; this change also mentioned spacing and wikilinked to WP:MARKUP to address other issues mentioned above. I left in the markup for now; perhaps we can try it that way for a while, and try it without the markup for a while, and see which works better? Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides, one thing that might be helpful is if you would pick an old (hence, now unprotected TFA blurb) and add alt text; it could serve as an example. Unless I'm completely blind <ahem>, today's example doesn't include alt text, so it's not a good example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)e
I thought of that, but decided that it would be harder to maintain, as we'd have to update the old blurb whenever we change blurb style. Since I've fixed all the TFAs from October 25 on, the current method should start working in about 31 hours; that's soon enough (and I can repair any poorly-formatted submissions that come in during the meantime). Eubulides (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing some of the blurbs here, I see they don't always comply with Raul's instructions (meaning he probably has to rewrite them). Perhaps regular page followers could begin to ping the nominators when the blurbs are off? [4]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Point rulings needed
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I feel that Lang is two points. I don't have any great problem with tipping a nom one day in front or back to avoid conflict while keeping the date point. Though keeping a wary eye on it to make sure this doesn't become a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Two for Lang. By the strict letter of the rules, one, but there seems to be a feeling that where there is a conflict in dates, moving it by a day is OK while keeping the points. I think that is something we should discuss though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Raul may schedule the 1st when he schedules the 30th it is unfair for it to be removed. I am going to put it back up and note the points. There will be six up and if one is removed it should be Lang, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't you remember the "olden" days, of 200 noms, and everyone *had* to have their article on the main page? :) This page has been stable now for a very long time !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking of exactly the same thing. A few days ago I saw the page for the first time in months—perhaps even a year—and was very pleased to see that it was working well, and with no major changes in the format. I felt the need to post somewhere a praise for the good work of everyone involved, but wasn't sure whether it would be a good idea. Praise is supposed to be a good thing, but it often results in decreased productivity. :-P
Trying our best. A smoothly working page benefits everyone and I think we all have realized it. If we could only clear up the basic subject matter point issues, I think the page would be even more smooth, but people will insist that it should apply to cutting edge physics that some guy won a Nobel Prize for last year!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Halloween
Latest comment: 15 years ago34 comments11 people in discussion
Generally, Raul seems to do those Halloween, April Fools, etc. articles without a nom from this page, though I have no doubt he would consider an appropriate article from this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
While the 1st picture in the article (of the museum) might be better for a regular TFA, the 2nd (right) would definitely be better for Halloween. Smallbones (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone have time to calculate points (if relevant, they may all be the same), do blurbs, and put up a poll here on talk, in case Raul decides to consult this page? He doesn't always run a Halloween-themed article, because we get the usual complaints about US bias, but the non-US articles might help counter that bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Umm, just noticed Cock Lane Ghost is not an FA. As for the other two, zero points I get on each, unless the nominator is a significant contributor who has not had a prior TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is not done tonight, I'll take care of it but I am trying to concentrate on Chamberlain right now. Neville, not Wilt.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No hurry; perhaps Malleus will get to it over the weekend. I just called him a "dork" for proposing a TFA that has already been TFA; 'spose I'll get blocked for NPA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The Manchester Mummy, Hannah Beswick (1688–1758), was a wealthy woman with a pathological fear of premature burial whose body was embalmed and kept above ground for over 100 years after her death. The "cold dark shadow of her mummy hung over Manchester in the middle of the eighteenth century", according to writer Edith Sitwell. The mid-18th century saw an upsurge in the public's fear of being mistakenly buried alive, and Beswick had seen one of her brothers show signs of life just as his coffin lid was about to be closed. Writing in 1895, the physician J. C. Ouseley claimed that as many as 2,700 people were buried prematurely each year in England and Wales. For more than 50 years Beswick's mummified body was kept in an old clock case in the home of her family physician, Dr Charles White, and periodically checked for signs of life. Eventually it was donated to the Museum of the Manchester Natural History Society, where it was put on display in the entrance hall. Beswick's home was converted into workers' tenements following her death; several of those living there claimed to have seen an apparition dressed in a black silk gown and a white cap, and described it as Hannah Beswick. (more...)
Microsoft Word tells me this has 1,300 characters (limit is 1,200), but perhaps I'm counting markup incorrectly. Does anyone know? Does counting markup mean counting the double brackets for Wiki links, or do we only count the final, rendered version? And is anyone checking the nominations on the page for the Suggested formatting items? I see several are missing alt text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I get 2,988 bytes including HTML for today's featured article vs 1,615 for this blurb. Readable prose similarly 1,610 bytes vs 1,206 for this. --MalleusFatuorum17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, Sandy, when I've nominated my own articles, I just eyeball it. Roughly six lines of text below the picture in the same format as main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you. But if you look at this, that is where I keep a draft blurb for each of my FAs that have not yet run. That doesn't mean I'm going to nominate any time soon, btw, one of the articles, I'm thinking about late 2011 for!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
At first glance, the two films above do qualify, but I like Manchester Mummy better. Of the two firm articles, I like Cat and Canary better. Smallbones (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
Hi all.
There was a push last year to get a WWI-linked article up as TFA on 11/11. I'm not sure if people want to do this again - it was explicitly The Ninetieth Anniversary last year, after all - but I thought I'd mention it as a reminder in case.
Battle of Arras (1917) and Battle of Vimy Ridge are both "large-scale" WWI articles which haven't been featured yet; if we broaden 11/11 to encompass WWII as well as WWI - which is a fairly reasonable practice - then Military history of Australia during World War II seems an excellent possibility; the day is observed in Australia, though perhaps not as prominently as elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
Prefer Vimy ridge, definately not Military history of Australia in WWII as Nov 11 isnt a prominent date in Australia, its distant second to April 25(ANZAC Day) in relation to Australian Military history, there is little to no recognition of WWII on 11/11 in Australia. Gnangarra21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Mmm - I wasn't sure from our article whether or not the date is particularly significant there. So Vimy or Arras; Arras has the advantage of being a more "multinational" one, whilst Vimy is Canadian-focused, but Vimy was promoted a few months back rather than in 2007 and as such is probably the better article. Shimgray | talk | 13:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting - I missed that discussion. Hmm. Something like Shrine of Remembrance would be great, but for the already-used problem; League of Nations is an interesting suggestion. Shimgray | talk | 08:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Just got in... Tks for support but looks like it's too late, according to the queue - 11 November's got something now (completely unrelated to WWI though - if we can sneak Cobby in anyway, I'm certainly ready to do up the paragraph...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I left a message for Raul suggesting reconsideration of the non-WWI-related article slated for 11 November and, while that didn't help Cobby get up, it looks like we do have a WWI article lined up now, namely Battle of Arras (1917)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Can we discuss what is going to happen on November 9? Inner German border has recently been promoted to featured status, in time to meet the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the border (on November 9, 1989). The anniversary has already been the subject of a lot of news coverage (see [7]) and retrospectives, and there will be a lot more as we come up to the date. However, I notice that 1968 Illinois earthquake has already been scheduled for that day, although I see that it's been suggested that it should be slipped to November 10. Any suggestions? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are referring to, and I have repeatedly assured that Raul is aware of this situation, and the relevant posts are on his talk page. November 9 is not scheduled, Ceranthor has several times offered to give up the slot, there is no problem: [8]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Just sit back and relax, I don't see any barriers. This discussion is splashed all over this and Raul's talk page, he can't have missed it, and the odds are he will accommodate you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the source of the confusion here, since this situation is so well in hand. ChrisO, perhaps the missing piece is this: Ceranthor is able to get the Earthquake article on the page because he gets points for date relevance. He can't move the request on this page to another date, because then he loses date relevance, and the nomination is replaced. So, we have two worthy candidates, a compromise generously accorded by Ceranthor, and Raul will work it out. There is no problem, but the Earthquake remains on the page because it loses date relevance for any other date and can't be moved to another date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And... the earthquake article was put on the Main Page today. I thought the idea to use the tenth instant had traction, but apparently there were other considerations. Pity. Waltham, The Duke of18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Twin articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I ws musing after the Obama/McCain double act on the mainpage, we have some candidates for other potted pairs which might be good for occasional twin mainpage postings (?) - the prerequisite would be a true "sister" relationship - eg hypothetical Mars hs two moons (Phobos and Deimos, so if both were fetured, they might be candidates for this...
Alpine Chough nd Red-billed Chough are the only two true chough species. They might be good to go on the mainpage at once (?)
I thought of these first as they are birds...can anyone see any other examples on the WP:FA page? Just might be a good way to get some more articles through the mainpage. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so as I read this, ITN isn't going to do anything with the election until after midnight UTC. If that's the case, my largest worry is alleviated. My second worry is setting precedents with regard to featuring (A) two articles at once, or (B) featuring articles on the main page a second time, remain. However, I think this can be dealt with by me saying, here and now, that this is an extremely unusual thing that I have absolutely no intention or desire to repeat in the future. Does that satisfy everyone? Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
From the same lengthy discussion linked above, there is another Raul followup:
Let me make my position clear - I was reluctant to feature these articles on the main page for two reasons - the potential to set precedents, and the conflict with ITN. The latter is now not a concern. So now I'm leaning towards it, assuming we can make it substantially clear for TFA requestors that this is a one-time thing. Insofar as a date is concerned, if I use them, it will be either for tomorrow (election day, Tuesday, Nov 4), or Inaguration day (Jan 19), not for Nov 5th. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to review how well the Obama/McCain double worked, and if we ever want to invoke WP:IAR ever again. I may be on record saying that I would vehemently oppose any attempt to use IAR here ever again (but IAR means that you "never have to say never.") But frankly I think it all depends on how much fervent enthusiastic active support you could get here, and whether you could convince Raul. Obama and McCain both had their fervent supporters, as did the election system itself (i.e. democracy). Fairywrens undoubtably have their supporters, but probably not so many. But Raul would be the hardest hurdle, I expect. BTW, I vehemently oppose using IAR here ever again. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Underrepresentation point
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The underrepresentation point continues to cause confusion. Could we call it something else without changing the rule? Perhaps "topical point"? Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it, but Diversity is just as bad. After all, for everyone, there has never been an article like their FA before (not being sarcastic, that's a good attitude to have in many ways).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to clear up the wording; perhaps I can't wrap my brain around it becuase I don't want TS to ever appear on the main page :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
How about merging it with the "main page representation" section, as both of these do have basically similar goals, viz ensuring a wide range of topics get posted -
Variety of featured articles
A similar article has not been featured on the main page (...bonus points)
A similar article has been featured on the main page (...malus points)
Topic currently has very few Featured Articles (+1 point if the FA category has <50 articles)
Sandy, vy not confront your fears? I realise dat de very tought may be terrifying, but vould you prefer to vorry about this for de rest of your Vikipedia career? It is 24 hours of misery, but after dat, you'll be free... Waltham, The Duke of20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion
As there is no agreement yet on whether Prairie Avenue loses points to Interstate 355 (which would mean that it, rather than Chrono Cross, gets removed), I have added a 6th nomination without removing anything. Discuss! BencherliteTalk00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, but one or the other has to get removed PDQ. I would suggest give it a few hours to see how the discussion goes, then act. In my opinion, they are similar. They are black and have stripes and people in White Sox caps drive up and down them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a need to act in a hurry; we can wait a bit for consensus to form, since Raul just scheduled pretty far out. (Boo, White Sox!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot more difference than Wewalt says. Historical residential street vs. modern expressway, architectural wonder vs. blot on the landscape. And don't forget the Cubs. Smallbones (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Who would want to remember them? And as for the streets, I think you have to draw the lines between categories somewhere. Even though one is a street and one is a highway, they are both roadways, and both in the same area (though the second point is not necessary to my contention). It's all about consensus though, so let's see how other editors weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The Cubs? are the Cubs still in the league? If MLB had relegation, they'd be playing little league by now. Actually ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a recurring problem. I'm getting tired of removing articles for the nominator, since that makes me bad guy. What we might wnat to consider doing is saying that unless the nominator removes an article to bring it back down to five, the nom is malformed and we just remove the new nomination and leave a note on the nominator's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The "housekeeping" will get 'ya every time :) Some days, I feel like I spend more time on housekeeping at FAC than actually reading to pr/ar. It's a Wiki :) And no matter how much we do to instructions, some people just don't read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don't read the entire FAC, but I do look at some of them. You have my sympathy. While "malformed" is of course an incentive to get it right, at least if I remove it, the right article will be axed, and that saves us bother. Also, I would say about half of nominations come from very occasional nominators, so the lasting effect is questionable, and of course I would be putting them off. It is a damned if you do situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I spared you one last night! After I spent 20 minutes fixing points, table, nomination statement, and getting one all set up, Dabomb87 had to come along and point out it had already been TFA, so I had to revert the whole thing. And the nominator knew it, and removed a valid nom to nom it anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you and Dbomb87 for that. I'm not here 24/7 anyway, and my intervention is of course strictly informal.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to bend the rules slightly here and post my request for the History of the Montreal Canadiens on December 4 slightly ahead of time. As all five current nominations are certainly worthy, it was my intention to wait until William III of England passed by naturally in about a day rather than remove another article, however I will be completely offline for the next three days and figured the next best alternative was to cheat. ;) If anyone objects, please feel free to hide the nomination until tomorrow so as to remain within the five article limit. Thanks! Resolute04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, the bigger problem now is the two, back-to-back sports articles. By leaving six on the page, the problem doesn't get solved. By keeping five, people will have to decide which sports article to vote off the island, so it can be removed, then Werner Mölders can replace it unless a higher point article comes along. That's how it works :) If we leave six on the page, we have two back-to-back sports articles; people need to "vote". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That is one consideration on why I wanted to get this nomination up at its first available date. Though, of course, being a sports geek, I'm perfectly fine with two sports topics running so close together. Especially since the only thing they have in common are the fact that they are sports articles. I do hope that the article on Molders can be restored in once William III is removed. It is a very good article. Resolute05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a rare event for a "vote off the island". We can't dock points until an article runs (they have more of a similarity than sports articles, they are both history of sports teams, even though one of them is not labeled a history article). I did warn that this was going to happen (see thread uppage), but sniff sniff no one listens to me. More than likely we'll just have to keep both articles until Raul schedules 11/30 for good or ill.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
But we've had them before (not points, % opposes) and it did work. I think page followers have forgotten how to oppose :). For this page to work, people have to vote. The current system allows for this just fine, because a request can be removed when it has a certain percentage of opposes. Maybe, although I dislike doing so, I should lodge a sample "vote" to get the ball rolling towards the discussion that should happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, we've got six nominations on the page again, since William Speirs Bruce has been added, and nothing deleted. Four points are claimed for the article, but that has been questioned. If it doesn't have four points, then as I understand it it doesn't have the right to bump any of the other articles, each of which has at least three points. Krakatoa (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Malformed gobbledegook. I simply forgot to delete the request when adding my own. And it is not for you to dismiss points awards summarily. There seems every reason to claim date relevance for a Scotsman, and a fervent nationalist at that, on Scotland's national day. Or at least have a discussion about it. But I can't be bothered to argue, I'm thankfully away for a few days' break. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is part of the process. And I don't dismiss points unilaterally, I wait until there is some support for the position except in very obvious cases. We don't have any sort of means of determining point disputes, so someone has to opine on points. Have a nice trip to Rome, say hi to Ben.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Józef Piłsudski (I am not a native speaker so I'll let somebody else write the blurb). Five points. (1) Promoted between one and two years ago, (1) Date relevant to article topic (142th birth anniversary), (1) Basic subject matter (major figure in Polish history), (2) A similar article (Polish historical biography) has not been featured on the main page for quite a while. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think he would be considered similar to any political figure regardless of nationality. I don't know who the last one was. Also, I am not so sure about the basic subject matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Zero points. I'll agree on the age, basic subject matter (the interwar "republics" are a great part of Eastern European national myths), and date relevance, loses three to Grover Cleveland (politicians). In practical terms, it is almost impossible for a politician to get main page representation points.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
50% oppose?
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
Just requesting some clarification here. The Scottish football team article was removed on the basis of this rule. At the time it was removed, it had nominator + 4 supports (i.e. 5) and 3 opposes. When I read the rule, I didn't think that this was a case for removal since 3 is not more than 50% of 8 declarations, and I took 50% to refer to the total of votes, not the total of supports. So is the rule meant to say "the number of oppose votes is at least 50% of the number of support votes"? If so, should it be reworded to make it clearer to thickies like me, who haven't seen this rule actually being used before? BencherliteTalk17:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I did as well. We could put William III up for tomorrow and then put the scottish article back up (though with more opposes it may fall back under 50%, but we'll see) Wizardman17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
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? BencherliteTalk12:39, 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)
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)
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. Resolute16:17, 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)
See, now that actually frees me up to support Prairie Avenue. ;) Here's hoping that in the next few weeks Prairie doesn't get a bunch of supports and/or Planescape a bunch of opposes before someone decides to try replacing an article. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:56, 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
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 14 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion
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? Fainitesbarleyscribs09:33, 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs16:16, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Fainitesbarleyscribs19:41, 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs23:35, 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. Resolute22:07, 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. Resolute22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyhoo, sometimes Raul goes ahead and schedules 10 days or 2 weeks, and we're sometimes down as low as one article, which I think is the record in the year and a half since I got here. So don't rip up your tickets just yet!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 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)
Points on Prairie Avenue - significant coverage of event?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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?
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
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. --MalleusFatuorum01:54, 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? ;) Resolute17:46, 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)
Moons
Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion
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)
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)
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_Zero14:21, 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)
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)
Whats the rush? Even as a 4 point article it won't have much problem finding another article to bump. Therefore there is no problem waiting another week or so. Why don't we wait to see if Ceres gets scheduled so we can see if it will be a 4 point or 7 point nomination? Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: Does one need to be a significant contributor to an article to nominate it for TFA?
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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. –Grondemar23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Anybody is allowed to nominate. The reason you see the significant contributors make most of the nominations is because since they wrote the articles, they care about them and this is the eventual prize for writing a FA. I'd say go ahead and nominate it, sometimes even significant contributors forget about the date relevance, I just reminded one the other day about a centennial which is now up on the vote page. -MBK00408:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I always considered the "prize" for brining an article to FA quality was learning about the topic and sharing that gained knowledge with the rest of the world. Getting an article on the Main Page helps get more eyeballs on it though. So that helps. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Olympics?
Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion
Do we have a good article or two to push for the Winter Olympics next month? Seeing Hacek on the nom page made me wonder ...--Wehwalt (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually brought this up at WP:OLYMPICS a few weeks back (and got no replies), here is what I posted:
For the last year, my goal has been to have Ice hockey at the Olympic Games run as a TFA at some point during the Olympics. However, I thought I would get comments from project members as there are other articles that would fit. Olympic Games is a FA as well, but I think it would be nice to run an article that has more to do with the Winter Olympics, rather than the Olympics as a whole and it would fit in quite well (and for the record, Yao Ming was TFA on the opening day of the 2008 Summer games). I suppose one could question the stability of the page, but if it ran on Fenruary 12 (the opening day) I see no reason why there would be stability issues as very little of the page would change until after the completion of the hockey tournaments. The other issue with the TFA might be that it shows favourtism towards one sport. However, hockey is one of most (if not the most) high profile events at the Olympics, and the games are being held in Canada. It fits in with both the event and the location (similar to Yao Ming being TFA during the 2008 games). Also, the Olympic Games article could be used as a TFA for a number of other events - the Summer Olympics, youth Olympics, Olympic congresses, etc. The rest of the current Olympics FAs relate to the Summer games (well, except Australia at the Winter Olympics, but it was TFA on September 4, 2007) and don't fit in quite as well. -- Scorpion042220:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, having Canadian athletes like Brodeur and Brewer would be possibly more like having a Chinese Athlete was two years ago. The general Hockey article is also a good choice. It looks like Hasek ight get squeezed out by the History of the Canadiens and the Olympic Hockey articles. However, for now it is a three-pointer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If we ran Yao Ming on the day of the Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, I think it would be a good idea to run an article on a Canadian Winter Olympic athlete. Though I am a Devils fan and favor Brodeur, that would kinda knock out having an ice hockey article later in the games. I'd suggest deferring Hacek for a month or so. All subject to Raul's say so, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
To be fair though, there really weren't any good alternatives to Yao at the time. Yao was also the flagbearer for China and one of the highest profile athletes there. I think this would be a great opportunity to run something different like Olympic Games or Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, rather than just another bio. -- Scorpion042200:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Has Canada announced its flagbearer? What if we were to run an athlete (preferably not ice hockey) on the day of the Opening Ceremon and the Ice Hockey article on the day of the Gold Medal Game (which I think is the last day), subject to Raul's OK, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Canada's flag bearer has not been announced, but Cindy Klassen would be a good bet. I wouldn't have a problem with running the ice hockey article on the last day, but there might be stability concerns then. -- Scorpion042200:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If Hasek plays and the Czechs are in the finals could he be the article?
Hasek was not named to the Czech team. And, to my knowledge, there are no FAs for any non-hockey athletes that may compete in the games. -- Scorpion042200:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Even if promoted, I'd hate to see Ohno run on the day of the Opening Ceremony. Nergaal's complaints about US centrism will be quite justified then!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but why not both? Have a (preferably Canadian) athlete on the day of the opening ceremony; Ice Hockey on the day of the gold medal game (same day as the closing)?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm, of course, fine with that, but both articles would be hockey related. I'm not sure Raul would be cool with that, especially if Hasek runs. Resolute16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ohno! Actually, I'm glad not to have to worry about that. If we run one athlete, he should for sure be Canadian.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would anyone support running Olympic Games on February 12, then Ice hockey at the Olympic Games on February 28? Yes, it's similar articles within 3 weeks of eachother, but there hasn't been an Olympics article on the main page in quite some time, and this is special circumstances. -- Scorpion042217:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
We still have two years before the 2010 2012 Olympics - surely we'll have more Olymics-related articles to FA status by then! I don't think we should necessarily wait on the main Olympic Games article. I'd supoprt running that one on the 12th and Ice hockey on the 28th. Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I had to read my post 4 times before I finally figured out what was wrong. My husband calls it "Karenland" - where everything makes perfect sense, but only to me and selected other crazy people. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The 2010 Paralympics run March 12 to 21, we could also possibly run something during that time period. However, there are no Paralympics-related FAs and I don't think there are any FAs for Paralympic or disabled athletes (if only Terry Fox or Rick Hansen were FAs). -- Scorpion042221:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
13th Airborne Division
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm hoping to have the 13th Airborne Division (United States) article as the TFA in middle to late February, but I can't find the blasted page that I added the request to - the one that lists all the desired TFAs for the next few months. Could someone link me to it, perchance? And also any instructions on how to add the blurb which would go on the front page - I had great difficulty with that last time I did this. Skinny87 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Look up, top right hand corner of this page... As for the blurb, there's a "suggested formatting" section on WP:TFAR - start with the lead of the FA, put it into one paragraph, take out any references etc, cut down the text until it's not more than the usual TFA amount, and format the image as indicated. BencherliteTalk12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The "Contributor history" criterion reads, "Requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor of the article requested" (emph. added). Does this definitely mean only the person who makes the actual edit to put the article on WP:TFA/R, or can it also refer to the major co-creators of the article? For example, say I have had a TFA before and I co-write an article with someone who hasn't. If I nominate it for TFA, can I say "1 point for contributor history: one of the writers of this article has never had a TFA"? Or do I just have to have the other editor make the actual edit (even if I, or both of us, am the one who wrote up the blurb, picked the date, etc.—making the actual diff little more than a formality)? Full disclosure: This has to do with July 2009 Ürümqi riots, an article I am a co-writer of and am hoping to nominate (but not for a good long while). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally, we've been pretty liberal about this criterion, and we allow someone else to nominate "on behalf of", as long as that person chimes in at TFA/R and says "What he said".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I like File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg showing the boy and his reflection as it shows a small part of the sculpture and its smooth reflective surface. My second choice would be the Kapoor image, followed by construction. I do not see the tent as a useful Main Page image (and am not sure about the construction image). I also emailed Anish Kapoor's studio to see if he would release the current lead image under a free license (can't hurt to ask, will elt you know what he says). Ruhrfisch><>°°16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
When an article is chosen to appear on the main page and the primary author was not the one who nominated it (and did not otherwise participate in the discussion), it would be nice if the author could be notified. GRB 970508, which I brought through FAC, was on the main page today and I had no idea that that was going to happen. I would have been a sad clam if I had missed it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
We did not have any discussion about that, that was selected directly by the Featured Article Director, Raul654, to whom I refer you if you have a concern. Meanwhile, congrats on the TFA!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Raul usually does choose most of the TFAs since we only have five at a time up here and he occasionally schedules for up to a week or two in advance. -MBK00402:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I thought all articles went through this process. I don't really understand why there can only be 5 articles discussed at any time, but that's not really any concern of mine. Thanks for the info. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Changing section naming convention for edit summary clarity
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think it would be helpful for the page history if all sections were named "Month DD - Nominated article name". This way when you are looking through edit summaries you could see exactly which article was which.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
I will be nominating Old Trafford as "Today's featured article" for 19 February 2010 soon, but I am unsure about how to total up the points that the article would gain. I know that it would receive 6 points straight off as it will be the 100th anniversary of the first match played at the stadium, plus 1 point for having been promoted more than a year ago and another point because I have never requested a TFA before. However, I am unsure whether the article would qualify for the extra point for being "basic subject matter"; it would seem to me that it does, but this is probably a subjective matter. Finally, could someone please clarify how similar an article would have to be to disqualify this one from receiving an extra point for there not having been a similar article on the main page in the last 3/6 months? The last article relating to association football on the main page was Bert Trautmann back on 22 October 2009 (almost 4 months before 19 February), but the last article about a football stadium to feature on the main page was all the way back in November 2008, when Priestfield Stadium was featured.
Therefore, I am certain that Old Trafford would qualify for a minimum of 8 points, but it could still qualify for a further 3 points, making a total of 11 points. Clarification would be helpful please. – PeeJay11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of practice, we do not award the basic subject matter point for non-academic areas such as sport. No main page representation points, we get plenty of sport articles and can't cut things that finely. Eight points, possible deduction of points if the hockey at the Olympics runs. Since we've never bumped an article with as many as four points, it should be pretty safe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I see she's an original member of the cast, so that would be two points. What are the others? I don't think there would be main page representation points, because we have had other actors and actresses, and we can't cut categories so finely to limit it to soaps.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, the Pauline Fowler article could run on February 26, the one year anniversary of Wendy Richard's death. Would this be an acceptable compromise? I can see no alternative TFA date for Old Trafford. Pyrrhus1620:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)She's a fictional character, not an actress. Would that make a difference? It was promoted over 2 years ago and I've never nominated an article at FA so that's a further 3. I had another look and it wouldn't get 8 points, but if it would fit into "Main page representation" it would get 6 or 7 points. But the actress who played her died on 26 February last year so if 19 Feb wasn't available then that would be another option, though it would get fewer points for that date. (ditto) AnemoneProjectors (talk)20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for hijacking this section by the way! It would definitely get 4 poi::nts for 26 February. In some ways I think it's a better date to choose. I just don't feel comfortable nominating something here since only 5 articles are allowed to be nominated at a time. It scares me slightly. AnemoneProjectors (talk)20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that, then. I do not think she would get main page representation points because of Homer Simpson in December. The points look like they would be good, then, because I don't think you'll beat Old Trafford. I should add we've never bumped a four pointer, so once you get there, it is pretty much all gravy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering, when will I be able to nominate Old Trafford? The page currently says that it's only taking nominations up to 18 February, but it's said that for nearly two weeks now. When can I nominate my article? – PeeJay19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Raul has to schedule a few more TFAs in order for the current date range (January 29 to February 28/February 18) to move forward. Because it's fairly unpredictable when he will do so, just be patient and keep watching the page for an update. María(habla conmigo) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
What I do if I am waiting to see if Raul is filling dates is go to This Month's Queue, then click on the first day that has not been scheduled, it will take you to the page, which will say that this date has not been filled, Raul makes the final decision yada yada, then clic on watch.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a regular here, so I don't know how "similar articles" are judged, but Sid Barnes and ice hockey at the Olympic Games seem to me like they could be considered quite similar to a football topic. Are articles on different sports considered to be different enough not to affect each other negatively point-wise?
Manny Harris and 
