User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs/Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Valereee[edit]

@Valereee: We can start here. I wrote some questions below. If you know the answer to the question just delete it. If not tell me what you know and I will fill-in the rest. If you have no clue, tell me in a funny way, for some levity, and I will tell you every thing I know. If you think of a question, add it and we can discuss it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POTD[edit]

How does a file become a Featured Picture (FP)?
It gets voted on at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, and needs a certain level of support. I've visited there a couple of times but they're speaking a language I don't understand so I just look at the pretty pictures. I did see a photo this morning that I wondered whether I could nominate:
Capel 1 Vue générale du Jebel Mudawwar depuis le sud-ouest
--valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for promotion is here: WP:FP?. You will notice the minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height. Therefore, the file you mentioned would not qualify per se. We do make exceptions for lower quality images but that is usually for extremely notable subjects which cannot be photographed again. Think past notable events (like File:A big tip in Galveston2.jpg) that will never occur again. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many votes does it take for a file to be promoted to FP? How are the votes counted?
I've wondered that, lol...I saw one the other day that wasn't promoted, and the discussion/voting didn't look that different to me, but it 'didn't reach quorum'. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Alisterus scapularis - Brunkerville.jpg --valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It takes at least 5 votes in support to form a quorum. If there are opposes, the supports have to be at least two-thirds of the total number of votes. So 5 supports and 2 oppose is a pass, but 5 supports and 3 opposes is a fail. At the same time, 4 supports and 1 oppose is a fail because there is no quorum.
Where do you start if you want to create a Picture of the Day blurb for November 24, 2019?
Maybe: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 2019, although since there hasn't been an image selected yet, I guess I'd first need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines? --valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you go ahead and pick one and schedule it. See below.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where can you find FPs that have not appeared on the Main Page yet?
...in some category somewhere? --valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page lists all the featured pictures that are eligible. The category is sorted from oldest nominated to most recent. I would suggest skip the first three pages (just to avoid all the difficult photos) and pick a photo from this page for example. You want to choose a photo with a fairly good quality article to make the process of writing the blurb easy. I would choose the article Tarring and feathering and this photo but feel free to choose a less controversial photo. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a protected version and an unprotected version of the Picture of the Day?
I'm assuming it's so someone could use it for other things while it's protected, but not make any changes that would affect the main page? DYK has a protected image, too, but come to think of it I don't know if that means it also has an unprotected version. I'm pretty shaky on the whole subject of images, actually. --valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found it very educational to have POTD pages on my watchlist. For example, did you know that old protected pages are deleted? I recommend putting these pages in your watchlist and reviewing all the edits that occur on them for the next few days: Template:POTD/2019-11-18,Template:POTD protected/2019-11-18, Template:POTD/2019-11-19, and Template:POTD protected/2019-11-19. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An important thing is that, when the protected version is edited per a report at ERRORS, the unprotected version should be synced. This is because it is the unprotected version that survives in the archives. Not everyone does this but they should. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misunderstood -- I thought you were talking about the image itself, but you meant the entire entry. Yes, that's true for DYK, too. The version that ends up linked from the target article's talk page links to the unprotected version, maybe? I've seen folks making edits after corrections to a DYK main page entry. I'll have to go track those down better. I've added those pages to my watchlist. --valereee (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the quality standards for the article to be featured alongside the Picture of the Day?
We have quality standards for that? --valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. This RfC decided that only the contents of the blurb need be verifiable. The article need not be fully sourced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the guidelines for Today's Featured Picture written?
Not even sure how to hunt that down! --valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have linked to it above but it is horribly outdated. The section on #Writing the blurb needs to be rewritten to match current practices. The only way to learn the quirks is to jump in. I know Ravenpuff would appreciate it if more people learned how and helped out by writing a few blurbs. I try to write one blurb per month. I would suggest, Valereee, that you do as well. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I definitely would like to be able to understand the area enough to make corrections, and it seems like one a month would be a reasonable way to do that. I'll give it a go! --valereee (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, instructions say to choose an image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures rather than from Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page, and I can't tell if those are just different presentations of the same information? --valereee (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, WP:FP includes all FPs, including those that have already been featured on the Main Page. The category only includes those that have not been on the Main Page. The category is populated from Template:Featured picture. The category includes all the FPs that are tagged with {{Featured picture}} but do not have {{Picture of the day}}, which is exactly what you need. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, C&C! Should I update the instructions to tell folks to choose an image from the category rather than the WP:FP page?
Also I tried to template the tarred-and-feathered image at commons, and the preview gave me an error message. I tried looking at the source code for other images to figure out where they were templated -- enwiki or commons, I mean -- but I guess I'm not sure what I'm looking for. I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day ----valereee (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, sure. You can add the category to the instructions but since I played a major part in creating the category, I recommend softening it a bit by say some thing like "Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page may be helpful in selecting a Featured picture."
The most common error in create a POTD template is forgeting to add an image size. Make sure to add a number for | size=. Most of the time we use 300 as the size. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How to schedule a POTD appearance

Coffeeandcrumbs, I think I added the template, but it's not shown up at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 2019 yet, does that take a little while? ----valereee (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, no, actually it doesn't look like I've added the template correctly. Do you want to go look to see what I did wrong? ----valereee (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the source code for today's picture at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WInd_Rose_Aguiar.svg, and I don't see ANYTHING that indicates there's a template on there with size, etc. What am I supposed to be adding? I'm lost. ----valereee (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I see the issue. Let me explain. Perhaps you are not aware that even though the File is located on Commons, there is a corresponding page in en.wiki where additional templates can be placed. In your next attempt please remember these three things:
  1. You should only edit the page, located here on the English Wikipedia, for File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpg.
  2. The template is {{Picture of the day|2019-11-24}}. Please copy this into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Meintz,_punished_during_World_War_I_-_NARA_-_283633_-_restored.jpg. On my browser, next to "View history", there is a tab called "Edit local description source". In it, you will find only one other template. Add this new template below it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Forget about the size parameter for a few minutes. It will become apparent soon. Just copy {{Picture of the day|2019-11-24}} into the File page on the local description source I described in #1 and #2.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke, done! Yes, I knew there was (or often was) a file on enwiki, too, just didn't realize that's where this template should go. ----valereee (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Now that you have done that go to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 2019. You will see this:

November 24

Tarring and feathering

Tarring and feathering is a form of public torture and humiliation used to enforce unofficial justice or revenge. It was used in feudal Europe and its colonies in the early modern period, as well as the early American frontier, mostly as a type of mob vengeance. The victim would be stripped naked, or stripped to the waist. Hot wood tar was then either poured or painted onto the person while they were immobilized. The victim then either had feathers thrown on them or was rolled around on a pile of feathers so that they stuck to the tar. The image of a tarred-and-feathered outlaw remains a metaphor for severe public criticism.

This picture shows German-American farmer John Meints, of Luverne, Minnesota, who was tarred and feathered in August 1918 for allegedly not supporting war bond drives during World War I. The photograph is in the collection of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Photograph credit: unknown; restored by Opencooper

Recently featured:

Click on "create" and fill out the form. This is where the size parameter can be found. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)'[reply]
Yes, I got that far, but I've done something wrong -- it shows up in the individual potd, but not on the November list. Also do I just copy the credit -- unknown or not provided? Just unknown? ----valereee (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it does. You followed the steps perfectly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're seeing it at [[1]]? I'm only seeing it at [[2]], at the main archive page, it shows up with the photo but not the rest. ----valereee (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do a hard refresh of your browser. Ctrl-F3 on my computer.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I have made a few edits to your blurb. Please review them and monitor the template until it appears on the Main Page to learn more as other people make edits. The last thing I want to warn you about is to not trust the lead section of articles. Ensure that all information you copy into the blurb is verifiable somewhere in the article.
Unless you have any more questions this concludes my POTD 101 class. Thank you! I will start discussion about the other sections soon. I am a bit busy watching the impeachment hearings right now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too...CSPAN, the background noise of my life. Weirdly, I am completely unable to get this thing to refresh. I've emptied my cache and browsing history, tried all the button combos, nada. But when I pulled it up on my phone, there it was. This has happened to me before when I created an article and it...just...never showed up on a Google search, but it showed up on my phone. Cool on the other sections, this is pretty fun. I'm going to start looking for a POTD for December so I don't forget what I've done here. You need to run a school for this, I could totally do the DYK section. :) ----valereee (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

RD (Recent death)[edit]

Does a recent death nomination need support votes to post? Does it require a consensus?

I think it just needs either no opposition, or consensus? The only reason I think that is because I saw one where the nominator was complaining that the RD had gotten no opposes and yet still wasn't posted, even though it also hadn't gotten (any?) supports. --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, it does not need any support or consensus. The consensus is pre-established. It should be posted as soon as the article is "good enough" as you said. Sometimes, there is an old oppose but the article has been fixed since. You don't have to wait for a support if you are confident the issue has been fixed. It is perfectly fine for example:
  • Oppose Needs three more cn tags fixed.
  • Oppose per above.
  • Posted Issues were fixed. -- valereee.... --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does an RD require before posting?

A good-enough article. --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, that people who recently died still qualify for protection by WP:BLP for a period of about 6 months after their deaths. EVERYTHING must be sourced.
The article should also not be too stub-y. It should minimally cover the major aspects of the subject's life. No decades-long gaps in the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do animals get an RD posting?

Yes, if they have an article and it's good enough. --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, all biological organisms with their own standalone article or significant coverage in an article qualify for RD. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is a member of a band without a standalone article eligible for an RD?

Yes, if the band's article gives them significant coverage. --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What steps should you take before posting an RD?

Hm. Check the article, deal with tags or issues that should be tagged. Make sure the article is updated and covers the death. Or if it's too big a task for one person to manage quickly enough, maybe ask somewhere for help? --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, as an admin, what should you double check? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...gormless... --valereee (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See below. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How long does an RD stay in the ITN template?

Until it gets bumped off by the next death? And maybe there's a maximum number of days after the death? --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, until it bumped off, but also no longer than 1 week old. But there should always be at least 3 RDs in the template. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the maximum number of RD that can be on the Main Page at any single time?

I want to say six, but I'm not actually sure that's correct. --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a recent death occurred a month, under what cirmumstances is it eligible to be posted now?

If the person was missing and the body was just discovered or the person was declared dead? --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true as well but... In some instances, a person dies but it is not public knowledge (there are no RS reports). We have been known to post deaths that occurred a month or two in the past because there was no news of their death until now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous question what date should be considered the "effective date", the date placed in the hidden note on the ITN template?

I'm assuming it's the date they were declared dead or their body discovered, as I'm not sure how else they wouldn't age off the page before they appeared there? --valereee (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We use the date the news of their death was first conclusively reported. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, the news broke within a couple of days of the person's death. In this case, where the news was announced fairly soon after the death, we just go with the death date. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


You seem ready. Let's post one. I have your back.

@Valereee: What do you think of Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Liu Shahe? Do you see any issues? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...it's nominated by Zanhe, normally a diligent and careful editor, who has made two dozen edits in the past several days. There doesn't seem to be anything after the mid-80s, which is a little surprising for a poet who lived another thirty years, but honestly if Zanhe says he's updated, I believe him. I see no BLP issues. I see no issues with the sources. I see no obvious neutrality issues. I see no unsourced controversial content. I'm inclined to post. --valereee (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Below is my usual check list. Go ahead and post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Check the following:
  1. Is the person actually dead? Check the source? Use Google Translate.
  2. Is the death stated in prose? The article should say "Liu died on [date]", followed by a citation. The death date should NOT only be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. It should be repeated in the body of the article.
  3. Is everything sourced? This includes any sections on filmography, discography, and/or biobliography etc... ISBN and OCLC numbers are acceptable in lieu of a proper citation.
  4. Less important, but personal pet peeves...
    • Is the birth date sourced? If not remove it.
    • Is their a source for the middle name? We had a vandal a while back that inserted a fake name that was repeated in RS causing a now unfixable hoax.
Once you have done that go ahead and post. This is not a trick. I would not steer you wrong. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have posted. Finish up by doing the following:
  1. Add Posted to the bottom of the discussion at ITN/C
  2. Add (Posted) to the section heading for the nomination.
  3. Click on the "give credit" link(s) in the nomination template which will automatically format the credit on Zanhe talk page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, check my work! The guy is dead, the death is stated in prose in the source, the bibliography is sourced but as a whole to three different sources, so I didn't actually make a checklist and go through it all one by one, but multiple of the sources are listing multiple of the books. And I am a complete AnRet on dobs. There's no middle name, do you mean birth name? It's in multiple of the sources. --valereee (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: middle name, I am talking hypothetically. Do #1 and #3 above from my list of things to do after posting. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, yep, we've been crossposting, I think I've done all 3 now --valereee (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This concludes the ITN 101-RD course . Thank you! We always need more admins to post RDs. Please visit ITN/C when you are bored. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing[edit]

This is the wild wild west. There is very little consensus in this area. I would say avoid it unless (or until) you are a regular contributor to ITN/C. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN/R[edit]

What is ITN/R?
Why, ITN/R is a recurring news item, C&C! :) --valereee (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does an ITN/R item require a consensus on the notability of the news to be posted?
Consensus is already established on the ITN/R page? And can I just say that the fact the sports section is longer than the entire rest of the list is just further support for my argument that wikipedia's gender problem may actually be a sports problem? --valereee (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the two most often cited (and only legitimate) oppositions to an ITN/R item?
Article not updated and...maybe ongoing edit war? --valereee (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article not updated would certainly be a disqualifying factor. In particular, one of the most often cited oppositions is that the article lacks a prose summary of the final event. In sports events, that means describing the final game in words instead of just a table of scores and stats. For elections, we similarly want a prose summary of the results of the election. For example. see 2019 Ukrainian presidential election#Results.
The second most common disqualifying opposition is too much unsourced claims about living people. We are unlikely to see an edit war on these articles among extended confirmed registered accounts. If you notice an edit war led by IPs and new users, I would recommend page protection on the article which usually quickly quells any war and stabilizes the page for posting. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is 2019 Davis Cup an ITN/R nomination? If no, does that mean that the Davis Cup should never be posted?
It's not listed at ITN/R, so it's not an ITN/R nomination. I assume there's been argument over whether it should be included on the list of recurring items in the ITN/R archives, so there must not be consensus on whether it's a notable enough event that it's reasonable to include it every time it happens. But that wouldn't meant an individual event doesn't qualify. Maybe there's a famous rivalry in the finals or something? The nominator, however, seems to be arguing that it's an inherently notable event. There's an opposer pointing out that the article is little more than a stub when you consider prose count. --valereee (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. This is not ITN/R. But that does not mean we can't post it. However, it will require a consensus unlike other ITN/R nominations. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the 2022 FIFA World Cup, would we bold link 2022 FIFA World Cup or 2022 FIFA World Cup Final or both? How do you decide what to bold link?
Well, certainly not to a redlink, in the unlikely event it were still red. Or to a redirect. I suspect the answer is to bold link to the Final article if when the time comes, the Final article is of sufficient quality, but if it isn't and the main article is, to the main article. And to put a hidden comment into the blurb so that with any luck some idiot won't come along and ignore it. :) ----valereee (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When deciding what should be bold linked at ITN, ask your self the question which article is the most complete? Which article has a summary of the final event? In 2022, when this gets nominated, you would expect the 2022 FIFA World Cup Final article to at least be created. I was asking how do you choose which article to make the bolded target article. Sometimes the article for the entire World Cup is more complete including a final match summary. Sometimes the Final article is more complete. You should bold the most complete and best article. If both articles are complete and in good shape, bold both. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If This Is How You Lose the Time War wins the Hugo Award for Best Novel, what article should be in bold? What if it wins the 2020 Booker Prize?
Book article references could use some help. Award article doesn't seem to have gotten any prose summaries; it's really almost a list article. So I'd think improve the book article and link to it. Also would be nice to improve Amal El-Mohtar if we're going to include a link to that article. The Booker Prize article has prose summaries, so it would just need updating for the final event, and given that 2019 Booker Prize is pretty basic and 2020 hasn't even been created yet, unless someone gets excited about it, probably link to Booker Prize. --valereee (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of a disagreement among ITN/C contributors about this. Several editors like myself believe that an article like Hugo Award for Best Novel or Booker Prize should never be the bolded target article for an ITNR item. We believe that when a work or person wins an award like this, either the work or the creator should be the bolded link, always. Theoretically, the 2020 Booker Prize could be the target if it is of good quality with sufficient prose but I, especially, believe it is pointless to point to an article about the prize, year after year, with only a 1 line update or just a list of nominees, short list, and winner. There is nothing worth reading about.
No matter how important the news maybe, we should remember we are not a news agency. We are using ITN as excuse to improve our encyclopedia; we are using the endorphin high users get to encourage them to edit and update articles about recent events. The reader benefits the most when we encourage editors to offer good quality updates to the encyclopedia. We should not cheapen ITN by letting minor updates, that take little effort, receive the exposure of the Main Page. This is similar to how DYK expects 1500 characters, 5x expansion, or GA as a requirement. TLDR; it should be a little hard to earn an ITN appearance.
Some awards like the Oscars are of course a different thing altogether. Here there are multiple prize-winners and we almost always get a nice article like 2019 Academy Awards with detailed prose of the award ceremony.
This concludes the ITN/R course. Do you want to keep going? Is this actually helping you? I was thinking that for our next course we nominate Buzz Aldrin to appear at TFA on January 20. Is that something you are interesting is seeing done? You have been an editor on Wikipedia much longer than me so I want to make sure I am not acting like I am teaching you things you already know. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I'm interested in continuing! I'm learning tons and discovering back alleys I'd had no idea how to find. (Some of the main page instruction/staging areas are a bit opaque.) While I've been here a while doing article creation/curation and had dabbled in a few maintenance areas, I didn't really find the area that interested me until the past year or so, so there's still plenty for me to learn about the main page. I sincerely appreciate all your work and am finding it very helpful! :) Yes, I'd totally go for Buzz Aldrin! --valereee (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regular ITN[edit]

What about regular ITN stuff? I worked on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2019 Hyderabad gang rape, but wasn't sure at what point it was a go? At what point does my working on it disqualify me to post it? What represents consensus to post? --valereee (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I will say you were too involved to read the consensus on this one. I am afraid I cannot teach you how to judge consensus at ITN/C in this forum. There are some contributors that are outright [redacted per AGF] when it comes to news from third-world countries. I cannot write what I really want to write in this public forum. After being involved in enough discussion, you will notice the pattern yourself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, oh, yes, I wouldn't have posted that one! I edited that article heavily the day it was nominated, as it seemed likely to qualify except that it was in bad shape. I'd be reluctant to post unless all I'd done was post a simple support, and even then would be reluctant if the question was close. I just wasn't sure whether even that was frowned upon, or whether there were definite rules like at DYK. --valereee (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, if I were you, I would only ever post RD and ITNR in which I was involved in. And only if I can't get the attention of an uninvolved admin. If you notice a delay, I would recommend pinging some of the usual suspects like Kees08, Stephen, Spencer, Jayron32, Tone, MSGJ, and Ad Orientem. Only after pinging a couple of them would IAR be justified. You will notice many of these admins withhold !voting support because they want to remain uninvolved to post it. If I were you, I would use my support votes sparingly and instead wait for an opportunity to post the item. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Say I want the article Bombing of Tokyo to appear on 10 March 1945, what is the earliest date we can nominate an article for a March 10th appearance?
Hm...right now they're accepting requests for January, although I have no idea what's going on at this page. So I'm assuming around the first of February we start accepting requests for March? --valereee (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can start requesting appearances in March once February is fully scheduled. February is fully scheduled on the last few days of January. We are first permitted to nominate Bombing of Tokyo around January 26–31 or February 1, 2020, at the very latest. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time, where can we place a note for the TFA coordinators (in case we forget or if we don't want to nominate it ourselves)?
Here? --valereee (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When was Buzz Aldrin promoted to FA? Has the article suffered any damage since? Is there an ongoing edit war or any unresolved controversial discussion on the talk page?
March 18, 2019. Hm, damage...there have certainly been significant changes. The bible stuff is a little weird. Nine minutes vs nineteen, I'd want to check, that's a factual change. Okay, urination, want to check that. Therapist, want to check that. Image change, want to check that. Toy Story stuff, want to check that. --valereee (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we definitely want to check that these things are verifiable and are not given undue weight. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb for Aldrin has already been written. Where can we find it?
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Buzz Aldrin/archive1
Exactly! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with the structure of the first sentence of the blurb. Can you suggest an edit to fix the multitude of and's in the first sentence?
I'd probably go with something like "Buzz Aldrin (born January 20, 1930) is an American astronaut and fighter pilot." Seems like astronaut should go first, then fighter pilot, and it's not like he's famous for being an engineer. It's really just what he got his degrees in. Except for the Aldrin cycler, maybe...hm...--valereee (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave engineer in, but I am at a loss on how to avoid 2 and's. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, "Buzz Aldrin (born January 20, 1930) is an American astronaut, fighter pilot and engineer." --valereee (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since he is alive we must say "is" but, since he is retired, we should say "American former astronaut, ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, ugh, I hate that former thing. He's an astronaut. He's not in space right this very minute, but that doesn't make him not still an astronaut. Would we have updated John Glenn in 1998 to make him an astronaut, then as soon as he landed again, change it back to former? I'm sure this has already gained consensus and I'm on the losing side, but ugh, I hate that former thing for things like this. The man's an astronaut. --valereee (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should BOLD-ly edit the blurb and ping people to comment or revert. Editing the same blurb instead of copying it again is common practice during this stage. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "editing the same blurb instead of copying it again" -- not sure what this means. Where/why would I copy it from/to? --valereee (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
nm, I think you mean copying it to a new post on that same page, then editing? --valereee (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are redirects allowed in TFA? We don't allow them in DYK, but it seems like I remember not all main page sections have a problem with them. --valereee (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, as far as I know, the no redirects "rule" applies to the entire Main Page. TFA is not an exception. You should edit the blurb to avoid redirects. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any other issues with the blurb? Where should we bring up issues and who should we ping?
"the first two humans to land on the Moon" is awkward. No idea where to discuss -- at that talk page until the article gets scheduled, then at the staging area talk? --valereee (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should raise any issues you see at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Buzz Aldrin/archive1. You should ping: {{@TFA}} and the major contributors Hawkeye7 and Kees08 who nominated the article for FAC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where can you find the instructions for nominating Buzz Aldrin to be the TFA for January 20 (his birthday)?
At Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests?
Exactly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here I will talk you through the process of nomination
  • Something to remember is that the blurb should be between 950 to 1025 characters. I think the best length is between 1000 to 1025 character. When the blurb is too short (closer to 950 characters), it throws the entire Main Page out of whack. Much of the imbalance that is created on the Main Page originates in the TFA section and compounded by the DYK section. This is why it is important that DYK has a balance of short and long hooks. If a DYK set with short blurbs coincides with a short TFA blurb, which sometimes happens, the Main Page looks very ugly.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Buzz Aldrin --valereee (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You missed step IV. Remember we want January 20, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOhhh. Duh. Check my work. --valereee (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, that is it. There is very little competition at TFAR, so unless two articles are competing for the same date, a nomination is guaranteed to be schedule.
I estimate that only 1 in 7 TFAs are scheduled because they were nominated. The vast majority of TFAs are just chosen by the TFA coordinators from Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. It would be a HUGE benefit to those tireless editors if each of us nominated at least one TFA a month. It takes a lot of time to choose and copyedit a TFA. Nominating them significantly decreases the coordinator's work load.
The practice of pre-writing a blurb is a recent thing. The vast majority of FAs waiting to appear on the Main Page do not even have a blurb written. (See for example: HMS Emerald (1795)) So, it would be very helpful to them if we wrote blurbs and nominated these articles to have their day on the Main Page.
Unless you have questions, this concludes my TFA 101 course. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, C&C! I will try to do a nom/blurb at TFA each month, just like a PotD. I didn't realize there were so few noms at TFAR -- that's what threw me, I think -- there weren't any there! :) As a DYK regular that kind of surprises me, although I got from some of the discussion I was seeing that FA people seem to think of "main page day" as a hassle. I guess if you think the article is already as good as you can get it, more input feels like a PITA. --valereee (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFA questions[edit]

So I'm seeing someone talking about adding the Red-tailed tropicbird into December. I go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-tailed tropicbird/archive1 and unlike at the Buzz Aldrin page, where I found a blurb review, the discussion is closed. If I want to start a TFA blurb review, do I open a new topic on that page? --valereee (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, looking at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Red-tailed tropicbird/archive1, I see that a blurb was written and the discussion is not "closed". The article is scheduled at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 29, 2019. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-tailed tropicbird/archive1. Needed to go to the talk page. This place is a maze. --valereee (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Cyclone Ada is a pending request for Jan 3. I go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Ada/archive1 and there's no talk page. This means I create the talk page to start the TFA blurb review? --valereee (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, that is not a bad idea but you can skip that step if you wish and just nominate it. The main editor should get a ping when you nominate it. The most cautious option (and the best option if there is time) is to start a blurb review and ping the coordinators and User:Juliancolton. Since Juliancolton is not very active these days I would also ping User:Hurricanehink and User:Jdorje who also seem interested in the article per [3].
I would not wait more than 2-3 days for a response. User:Dank will likely respond soon. If after a few days, there are no responses, be BOLD and move forward with the nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Cyclone Ada has been scheduled for January. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GMTA! --valereee (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being MIA, busy week+ here, will try to come help with Buzz Aldrin later this week. I was out of town over the weekend, and I serendipitously discovered a local museum was running an Art+Feminism editathon, and when I managed to track down the organizer I learned she did not yet have a wp account. :::eeek::: And I've never so much as attended an editathon. Blind leading the blind, here. So I'm scrambling to figure out everything that needs to be in place plus develop a lesson plan to give a basic editing lesson. Editathon is Thursday, so I can help after that. --valereee (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, everything is good. Buzz Aldrin has many friends on Wikipedia. I think WMF has some lesson plans ready for such occasions. You should email User:Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) who led an editathon I attended.
I am also taking a break before we jump into OTD. I am thinking it would be nice if we did January 1, 2020. We will see if we can come up with something nice for the new decade. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, the problem is more that we have too many lesson plans, and I finally decided it was easier to just reinvent the wheel than to sift through the ones that aren't really helpful. :) --valereee (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, as you can see. I advocate the learn as you do plan. If there is one thing, you should absolutely focus your effort on is How to add a citation. You should encourage your students to each find a different {{citation needed}} tag and show them how to add a citation. I would spend 30 minutes on that one thing. It is the only thing a new Wikipedia editor needs to learn. You can along the way teach them about NPOV, identifying good sources, verifiability, and BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's one of the issues for this 'editathon' -- it's two hours long lol. There's no budget so the museum staff member organizing it had to hold it while the museum was normally open but after her own workday ended. I do have a unit on citations, though -- the importance plus how to; good idea on adding citation needed tags! Adding that to my lesson plan. But it'll basically be me showing them how I find a bit of info I want to add, then adding it with the citation and an edit summary. I'm hoping I can convince everyone to work on existing articles rather than trying to create from scratch. --valereee (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more question[edit]

Is writing/editing blurbs for PotD and TFA almost as helpful as doing the actual scheduling? --valereee (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I would certainly think it is more important and time consuming. Writing the blurb is more than half the work, if we don't count the process of nominating and reviewing (WP:FAC and WP:FPC) the featured item. Unlike DYK, scheduling is a minor thing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is fabulous to know! I'm happy to write PotD blurbs, would much rather let someone else schedule the actual images, which to some is probably the fun part. :) Ditto TFA blurbs, although it feels like there's more help there as there are multiple people already heavily involved from the FA process, and also like not everyone is happy to be there. I've seen conversations about mainpage day that feel like...I don't know, not joyous collaboration with other projects? Like there are factions for some reason, or that TFA/FA don't always play nice? (Only 2 watching but feel free to trim/delete this if you don't want it here.) --valereee (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTD[edit]

This has the biggest learning curve so I am going to save it for last. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs, sorry about the naked dead guy. --valereee (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it at all. I have no patience for people who can't be bothered to help, but no one can fault you for trying to help. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: FYI, I am going to use January 1 to teach Valereee how to update OTD. I hope you agree this is a good idea and do not mind some more hands that can give you breaks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs, sounds good to me! --valereee (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What are basic criteria for an article to be bold linked at OTD? Where are the "rules" written?
WP:OTDRULES, I assume? It looks like an event needs to be of major historical significance, article needs to be updated, not a stub and contain the exact date except for certain exceptions.
Exactly. There is also somewhat of a quality standard. There should not be too many {{citation needed}} and no entire sections with no references. I would say about the same or a little lower standard than DYK. We mostly deal with past events so BLP is usually not a concern. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Are there any articles in the "Ineligible" section of January 1 that you think qualify to be "eligible" or are close to qualifying? List them in bullet points below and lets discuss them and see if we can improve a few.
  • Ai yi yi, I'd love to do New Year's Day, but that refimprove section is a very large section. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valereee, I also wish we could do this one but it may be impossible in this short amount of time. ✗ Fail. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Julian calendar might work. It's only the one shortish section. It is the section that actually deals with this particular blurb, too, which makes it interesting and might make it interesting to other editors, though there's not much time for that. Yow, though, lots of what looks like opinion in it, and the whole section is unreferenced. Probably a complete rewrite, but it's not very long. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Working but please help. We should focus on the offending section but we should also try improving referencing in sections that are not tagged. I see a lot of paragraphs without a citation at the end.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, now that I look at those two sources, neither of them is online, and one's in German and not even on Google Books. I've added a Google Books version of the citation that indicates that possibly the entire section is sourced from that source but left the original source because of that explanation. Er, with an explanation. TLDR: we probably aren't going to be able to fix this one. ✗ Fail --valereee (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Times looks promising. The section actually has lots of references already, it's just that there are unreferenced paras. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Working but please help. I agree. We can certainly make this eligible with some work. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's time to fix this one, either. There's just too much unsourced stuff; I've added another half dozen cn tags. ✗ Fail --valereee (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I missed that you'd said it was more promising. I'm willing to keep working on this, but there is a ton of unsourced stuff, and it's not the kind of stuff that's going to be easy to track down. Someone's just added great swaths of assertions with no indication where they came from. I suspect fixing this might require cutting rather than finding sources. I'm going to ask at the article's talk. --valereee (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, for the size of the page I think 10 cns is acceptable for OTD. Feel free to get rid of more cns. I think it is ready to move to "eligible" now. I will start a new section below on the rest of the process to complete this task and update the OTD section for January 1, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Slavery in the United States is way too long to try to fix "tone" in this timeframe, but I think we need an article on the 1807/1808 prohibition. A bit shocked we don't have that article yet. Could be a todo for next year. Too bad we didn't do it for last year and the 210th anniversary. :) --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the tone tag (which has since been removed this year) was in reference to the section "Fancy ladies". I guess some editor did not like being told the truth about how nasty slavery was. Nonetheless, even though the article has improved a lot in 2019, it still needs more work; I see too many paras that do not end in a citation. The good news is we do have Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.
    • We should rewrite this blurb to bold link that article. I will demostrate how.
    • Note that, before using a new article as the bold link, we need to check that the article is not bold linked from any other from any other OTD page. We can do this by using Special:WhatLinksHere and selecting "Wikipedia" as the namespace. We are good for Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.
    • In this edit, I rewrote the blurb. In this edit, I moved it to eligible section. That is it! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yay! I'm so glad we did have that article, that's a much better bold link than the slavery article. I suspect that blurb must have been written before we had the article about the act. So that's all it takes to reclassify -- interesting. I imagine multiple editors will be by to check that move from ineligible to eligible. --valereee (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, Ravenpuff and Howcheng will probably be the only editors that will ever notice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that. :( --valereee (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lachlan Macquarie Section already has a lot of references already, even fewer unreferenced paras than the times. I actually suspect it wouldn't have been declared ineligible except that the section in question is the one for the blurb. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Working but please help. I think we can get this eligible.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Valereee, we are running out of time so I am going to ✗ Fail this one unless you particularly want to work on it. The Placenames section is almost entirely unsourced. I have tagged the shit out of it and next year it should be in better shape to be reconsidered. The Times is more attractive to me as the 235th anniversary of the first paper named The Times. To our journalist editors, it is a pretty big deal. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I was just starting to work on it, but it's going to be difficult, I think. Many of the articles linked to say the place is named after Macquarie, but have no source for it. I think it's maybe a bit like places named Washington in the US -- of course 99.9% of them are named after George; no one needs to mention it anywhere. --valereee (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm finding a lot of sources that mention Macquarie's involvement in the development of some place named after him, but don't specifically say, "...and so they named the (hotel/museum/lake/river/culvert/school) after him." I suspect Australian editors might look at this tag and say, "Of course these were named after Macquarie; this is WP:BLUE." --valereee (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I've asked a question at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. --valereee (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The Aussies have made some additions; do you think it's anywhere near enough? Would removing some of the less-important looking unsourced ones be enough? --valereee (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC) NM, going back through there are too many other cns. It's just a fail. --valereee (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Boris Bazhanov one short refimprove section, does have one reference already. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Working but please help. This is also very close. We should start with this one and work our way up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Valereee, I took a pass at this and added a significant amount of citations. See if you can get rid of a couple more CN tags and we should be good to go. When you are happy with the state of the article move the blurb to "eligible". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C&C, I've removed all the cn I could, but there are two left I haven't been able to deal with. They are significant pieces of information, but I either can't find mention of them anywhere (the Rosenberg anecdote), or everywhere I can find them is suspect (the retractions.) I suspect they're in sources somewhere, but I can't get to the sources that are on nearby sentences. It's not trivial information, but without the ability to verify would two cns on their own make this continue as ineligible? --valereee (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I think two cns is acceptable for OTD. The subject has long been dead. Please move the blurb to "eligible". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C&C, moved! I added citations on the blurb support sentences; wasn't sure if that was required at the sentence level for OTD, but as I couldn't access that info in the two sources on that para, I thought it was better to find it and add it to the sentences. --valereee (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait...it's been used before: Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 January 1, does that violate the rules? --valereee (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, no, that is fine. Actually, that is exactly what we want, to make things that were eligible in past eligible again. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, ah, so the reason we checked the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves was to make sure it wasn't associated with some other date, not because an entry can't be used more than once. --valereee (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Cuban Revolution has just a short section marked for refs, but there aren't any there now except for a quote from Guevara. There's also a tag on the pop culture section for trivia, does that disqualify too? Should we mark as multiple issues? --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✗ Fail I would consider any orange tag to be disqualifying. We should be very conservative when we can. There are plenty of other blurbs that we can make eligible or already are eligible. We can also repeat one or two from 2019. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Zapatista Army of National Liberation doesn't actually have a refimprove tag; it's got an expand section tag. That might be tricky in this timeframe, but should we change the note under 'reason'? --valereee (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✗ Fail Yes, we should update the 'reason' for all the ineligibles we check. I also like to very liberally add {{citation needed}} on articles I keep at ineligible. Next year, you will find that someone has added citations and the article is much improved. Use the power of crowd sourcing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What should you do to reclassify "ineligible" items as "eligible"?
Hm...I don't see anything about that! --valereee (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

arb break for nav[edit]

It is always a good idea when updating OTD to check the history of the template for the past year. In the past year, three items have been added to the template. What are they? Do they meet the "rules"? Use bullet points. Don't forget to check to ensure that we have an in-line citation to confirm January 1 anniversary.
Getting into car for a 3-hour drive, will start on these later this afternoon! --valereee (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shirley Chisholm looks pretty good. No tags, sourcing and article both look comprehensive. Date of death was sourced inline at sentence to NYT, who on Jan 3 just said, 'Saturday', so I found another source that gave actual date and added it. --valereee (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God...hm, not sure. This one may need someone familiar with the Catholic church to take a look at. So many versions of the One True Church. :) Not thrilled with how many paras end without a citation, though all have at least one somewhere. --valereee (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellis Island also looks good. Date has multiple sources inline at sentence. Article is very thoroughly sourced, literally every para has multiple citations including one at the end of the para. Ah, it's a GA nominee, I was just wondering why it wasn't already a GA. --valereee (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Using some Quarry magic, I have identified some birth dates and death dates that have anniversaries on January 1. Please check if they qualify and add them to the "Eligible" section.
  • J. D. Salinger I've added a source for his dob and a few cns, but nothing that would disqualify I don't think. --valereee (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hank Williams...GA in 2011, has had many hundreds of changes since then. Multiple paragraphs end with statements having no citations, so I think this probably needs some work. --valereee (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, if you agree with me that this article does not meet GA criteria any more, please place {{GAR request}} at the top of the talk page. It is a good way to get attention on this page before it deteriorates further. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yeah --valereee (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gary Johnson...GA 2013, obviously huge numbers of changes since; lead is full of citations, which wouldn't have been there when it was passed as GA. But there are sources throughout the sections, almost no paras are missing an end cite. DOB was poorly sourced, so I added another. Probably passes. --valereee (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lhasa de Sela Sufficient sourcing but not for dates of birth or death, I've removed day/mo from dob (couldn't find it anywhere but at a crowdsourced site) and added a source for date she die. --valereee (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Here I will talk you through selecting 5 events and 3 birth/death dates to feature
  • Valereee, it is important that we present a set of events and birth/death dates from a wide range of centuries. Can you take a look at this tag that was added in 2009? I do not think this article deserves this tag. I think we should remove the tag and add this article to eligible. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How to do the final update
  • Please select 5 event blurbs for inclusion and list them below. It is completely up to you what you choose. The only advise I have is: [#1] we do not want more than 2 blurbs from the same century; [#2] we want to favor events that occurred in years that end in 0 or 5. These are more likely to be significant anniversaries; nice round numbers like the 10th anniversary of the 2010 Lakki Marwat suicide bombing; [#3] try to avoid featuring blurbs that were featured in 2018 and 2019 (for example the suicide bombing was last featured in 2017 which makes it a good candidate); [#4] the subject matter should also be varied; we do not want two plane crashes or two war battles or two terrorist attacks in the same set.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note this edit I made to save the photo for later use and get you started. We will select a new photo once we have the blurbs set.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Using the same logic used for events, select three biographies to feature in the born/died section. It is probably best to use the newest ones that were added to eligible. Include at least 1 woman and try to include a person of color.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • As you move new items to the featured area, move the old items into the eligible section of the staging area. That is it. Be bold and just do it! I will be checking you work and we can fix any issues that come up.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Howcheng did not get my ping. They have updated the template already. But no worries. We did great work. I am sure we made it the easiest update Howcheng has ever made. The work we did is the hardest part of OTD. I encourage you to continue doing such work. You will notice our work makes up most of the items selected. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs, oh, too bad! I'm so sorry I was taking so long to get to things -- I've been supposed to be on vacation since the 22nd, just yesterday afternoon got back to my normal availability. On a tangent, though...that is a ton of work for not very many people to be doing every day. Is Howcheng the only sysop working OTD regularly? And is Ravenpuff the only other OTD regular as well as being basically the only person running PotD? Honest to gosh, all those people haunting the drama boards hoping to get discovered like wannabe starlets at Schwab's soda fountain, lol...which leads me on another tangent, but I think I'll go deal with it on your talk page. --valereee (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I took you through the process in the most arduous path. In actuality, you don't have to do this much work to update the OTD. You can skip straight to the step of selecting 5 event blurbs & 3 born/died and just check those for verifiability. I wanted you to understand everything and in a way take advantage of you to leave the Template in a much better shape for future years. You notice now there about 20 event blurbs to choose from which makes updating this a very easy task.
Howcheng, I, you, and maybe Ravenpuff are probably the only people now that could do OTD for an extended period time. In actuality, if Howcheng, god forbid, dropped dead tomorrow, we would screwed! Howcheng went on vacation for more than a month (mid July to end of August 2019) and I took over for them. It was hard work. I did it for about 45 days and I was exhausted. I have offered to give them a month-long vacation every year. I do not know how they do it. Even without doing the extra work we did, it is a lot of work to do every single day.
I encourage you to just poke around the Selected Anniversaries templates and just make blurbs eligible where you can. It is the most helpful thing you can do to help the project. For whatever reason, Howcheng seems happy to schedule them. We just need to support them by giving them the most options and making their job easier.
THANK YOU for taking this "course"! This completes your tour of the Main Page! I hope you feel more comfortable editing the Main Page now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs I totally do! I have been referring back to this occasionally, like when I promoted Ari Behn to ITN, to remind myself of steps. And I totally feel competent at least to know what I shouldn't muck about with, which is the most important thing to know. I can't thank you enough for all the hard work and thought you put into helping me. I'd recommend it to any admin who works on one part of the MP but not others, if only to be able to address errors in other sections but also to demonstrate to other admins just how vulnerable our management of the MP has become. You should open a school, like Barkeep's NPP school. :) Though probably most admins working the MP are already more familiar with the other sections than I had been. Between you, me, and the lampshade, when I was approached about running an RfA, my response was something along the lines of, "Thanks, very flattering, I doubt I'm competent enough." I'm still a bit bemused that I passed. --valereee (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, oh, and next time you give Howcheng a break, let me know and I'll work with you on it! --valereee (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, sure. You should let them do the notes. They have a system and they wait till after the date occurs in case some thing gets pulled. Even when they went on vacation, I did not do the notes. They went through adding notes after they returned. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs I don't know...that seems counterproductively owny, to me. :( I would think the folks who usually do the notes could just make any fixes of things done incorrectly, and that way the people who are helping can learn the system. If one person owns the process, no one else will ever step up, and that's how we end up with no succession plan. Frankly it strains credulity that a ping was missed; I made 11 edits to the template in 2 days. --valereee (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I have misrepresent the situation. They have never discouraged me from making the notes. Feel free to do the notes. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, I'm sorry, C&C, I was overreacting. I apologize. --valereee (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 22[edit]

Could I get your eyes on R. Budd Dwyer? It is a subject people like to avoid editing because of his suicide. But that is why I work on it. These pages attract some bad attention but are usually avoided by experienced editors.

I am hoping we can improve it enough to get it eligible for OTD for January 22. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Ping Valereee. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs, I'm watching the documentary right now, filling in as I go! --valereee (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, its getting pretty good or good enough to be eligible. However, are you concerned as I am by all the Dropbox hosted primary sources? I think we should try to replace as many of them as possible with secondary RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, I guess I'd prefer to add a secondary source rather than replace the dropbox sources? I don't have any particular objection to those sources being included, I guess? --valereee (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, sounds reasonable. I have moved it to eligible, BTW. Thanks for your help. If you ever need help anywhere please ask. Editing messy articles seems less daunting and more fun when working with others. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, totally, I always like collaborating best. I believe some of these dropbox sources may be uploadable to commons, as they're products of the US govt. I've uploaded the indictment...we'll see if the commons gurus agree they're kosher for commons. :) --valereee (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, anything federal government should be fine. State government less so. I would have to check the laws in Pennsylvania but I don't remember noticing any State government documents on the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, I think there's at least one commonwealth source -- ref #26, https://www.dropbox.com/s/ukfw5zvd8t5px7g/CTA_Contract.pdf?dl=0 --valereee (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem works of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are copyrightable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, hey, the blurb... there were cameras there, and the footage was televised later, but it wasn't being covered live, was it? I'm not sure we can call it a "televised press conference." We could maybe say "he shot and killed himself on camera during a press conference" or "in front of television cameras during a press conference"? --valereee (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, seems like a reasonable complaint considering the common urban legend that it was a live transmission. Be sure to mention "not live broadcast" in the edit summary. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Grant Still[edit]

Valereee, File:William Grant Still by Carl Van Vechten.jpg would make a nice POTD for February, Black History Month, but the article is in bad shape. Do you feel up to another collab? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe! I just glanced at it very quickly, I see you haven't yet poured your syrup of {{cn}} over it. --valereee (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, thank you for your help on this! If you have more ideas for Black History Month (at TFA, OTD or POTD), please let me know. TFA for February is still a blank slate and we can nominate a few POCs from Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs there's FP File:Billy Strayhorn, New York, N.Y., between 1946 and 1948 (William P. Gottlieb 08211).jpg, used on Billy Strayhorn? It might be repetitive with Still, both were 20th-century male composers. --valereee (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or File:Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mathew Ahmann in a crowd.) - NARA - 542015 - Restoration.jpg, too bad we didn't use that one yesterday. --valereee (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or File:Sgt Major Christian Fleetwood - American Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - Restoration.jpg. Too bad about the Booker T. Washington article, or I'd suggest File:Booker T. Washington by Francis Benjamin Johnston, c. 1895.jpg but the article is HUGE. Maybe try to get it into shape for next year? --valereee (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coffeeandcrumbs/Main_Page&oldid=936893498"