Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Archive 2

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

Policy

I've proposed a new policy regarding the nomination of an article for removal. Please share your viewpoints. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Featured Article Removal Candidate.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Change in the procedure

I've tightened the procedure for removal. Its far too easy to nominate an article solely based on a users whims and fancy. I had proposed a policy change on the Village Pump. This was supported by the following users:

I think your suggestion has merit. I believe that the original nominator should be notified first and be given the chance to revise the FA article before its denomination unless it can be proven that the article is really bad. The short comments that I see on the FA Removal Candidates is distrubing. The process of FARC should have as an equal amount of complaints as it would for FA status. If something is nominated as a removal candidate, it should highlight all the points that illustrate why the article is no longer a FA candidate. Not something as short as: "I think this article falls quite a way short of current Featured quality. There's lots of problems obviously evident and not all can be easily fixed — I can give examples if you like, but I think it's clear, and I'm feeling lazy ;-)"; I think that's a bit unacceptable, given how much work and argument is required for an article to be an FA. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
A lot of merit here, I think. I share AllyUnion's concerns regarding the low level of argument on FARC; it is currently far too easy to nominate an article that people have put a lot of work into at some point to get it to FA standard in the first place with nothing more than a snide sideswipe. As with FAC, only actionable objections should be held valid. On occasion, the only action that really needs to be taken is to revert to the version that was made an FA in the first place. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need this instruction creep? If the maintainers of a featured article care enough about complaints on FARC they will fix them when it is nominated on FARC and {{farc}} is added. I can't see the need for a preliminary "I'm going to nominate this on FARC" stage. (Yes, I know two people supported your idea and no-one objected, but three people is hardly a consensus of all of the people who leave comments on FARC.) Telephone exchange, Phonograph cylinder and Aryan invasion theory are so clearly not of featured quality that I can't see why we need an extra week to get their featured status removed (Roy Orbison is not great but not disasterous either). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I see the idea behind this proposal, but it should not become a rule. Otherwise there will be "you're not allowed to nominate this!" "yes I am!" edit wars on this page. It should be possible that articles that obviously do not meet the FA criteria can be nominated here. Maybe this proposal could be used as a guideline. It would be nice if people follow it, but if they have a good reason not to, they don't have to. --Conti|✉ 17:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm neutral. If the policy is followed, the wars you speak of will be avoided if you simply point to the policy of the week delay period. I think it may help in the cases where something relatively small and quickly fixable about a FA is missing, such as no lead section. It gives the page editors a chance to fix the article first, which would have been helpful in the case of a few articles that were nominated here, and possibly shouldn't have been. But I also see that the same fixes can and have been made while the article is listed on FARC, so I'm not sure this new policy is needed. I certainly agree 3 people remarking on a page separate from this one does not constitute a consensus for the policy of this page. I realize there was a note above to go see the conversation, but it's not the same thing. - Taxman Talk 19:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I object a lot. If the procedure becomes that bureaucratic, with the requirement for waiting a week, you sure won’t see me list anything on WP:FARC again. (Not that I was ever much of a pillar of the page, but still.) A week is a very long time in Wikipedia time. Having to first post a warning, then wait a week, and then list on FARC—that just doesn’t correspond to how I work, or, I bet, to how a lot of other I-think-I’ll-go-mess-around-a-little-on-wiki wikipedians work. We do it for fun, not for getting more book-keeping into our lives. If I couldn’t have written, as soon as I came across Assassination, that it was an essay rather than an encyclopedic article, and immediately stuck it on WP:FARC, I’m morally sure I wouldn’t have listed it at all. Anyway, what is the actual practical point of waiting a week? How is it any better than for instance leaving the listing up a week longer? That would give authors the same amount of extra time to fix objections. Is it about avoiding the humiliation of having your article nominated on FARC? In that case, maybe it’s attitudes we need to work on. Personally I wouldn’t feel humiliated by one iota if one of my FA’s had deteriorated on account of, say, unskillfull meddling, got FARCed, then reverted to the FA version and taken off FARC. Why would I be supposed to..?
I understand that the procedure does need tightening up, though. For the first three requirements—giving proper reasons, a template on the Talk page, etc—I’m fine with those, they’re appropriate. The week-long wait, please no. That’s counterproductive instruction creep. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about adding a section 'Warned' or sth like this, were we would list articles that have been warned that unless they improve they will be FARCed. That way we wouldn't forget about the articles we warned, and FARC readers could go there and improve them even before voting begins. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain my position (I wasn't aware of goings-on on this page). First ALoan, this is not an instruction creep. As an accomplished lawyer, you must be aware that over a period of time, the law requires refinement to catch new loopholes. This is what I've done; and I think it's too harsh to label it an instruction creep. Now the main query here is, why have a parallel system? Objections will be taken care of during FARC. All that I've done is to add a delay clause. Take a look at some hypothetical and past scenarios:

  • Author creates a FA; the article is featured on Main Page -- target of subtle vandalism. Four days later someone nominates is on the basis that the =history= is too long. Result -- no removal calls; waste of time – should have used the talk instead (True case --; article is still a FA)
  • POV introduced into the text. Trigger hungry squad comes along and nominates it for FARC the next day. A simple rollback could have been carried out if talk page is used. (True case – article is still a FA)
  • What's there to stop someone from nominating an article on the pretext "its not brilliant prose "? a highly subjective topic (True case - article is still a FA)
  • Nominator claims the article is not balanced. Cites dubious/unknown/unverified sources. (true case)
  • Article nominated here on the basis that there are insufficient references. References are actually hidden in invisible notes See Wikipedia:inote; end result: a total waste of time (Possible scenario)

My main point is that a Featured Article is somebody's hard work. Hours are put in to write it/obtain images, and respond to objections on FAC. We are given a Talk page, why not use it to tell the authors that their "magnum opus" needs a facelift? If the reviewer is satisfied with the progress, then the article remains featured. Two reviews is all that it takes. But look at it as it was before.

Posted on FARC>Reviewed and objected by 8 persons>Article handler has to inform all reviewers that objections are dealt with (sometimes personally)>reviewers have to look again and re-review
=End result: Waste of time and energy.

In many cases an original author may not have featured another article for sometime so may not be aware on the updates. Inform him/her on the article talk page. Give the author a chance!

Responding to some of the above fears:

  • Conti: I don't see how it will be an edit war. Put up a notice; come back a week later & see if objections are taken care of; if not, list it here. No need for a reviewer to get into an edit war.
  • Bishonen: It's not about humiliation of one's article placed here. Its basic courtesy to say what's bad about this page, and so please address it. Instead of bringing the slime out here on objections/redresses, why not have it done on the article Talk page beforehand? I also don’t see why there is a need to be so nomination trigger-happy. Allow someone to cleanup the mess. Review it after a week's time. Is that too difficult to ask? In this way we can weed out
    • 1 week: yes. There's no guarantee that a person is a daily contributor to wikipedia. A week is sufficient time.
  • Theo: A person who creates a FA may not necessarily have it on his watch. I've removed some of my old FA's to watch newer articles.
    In my opinion, removing the article from your watchlist is to abandon interest in it. Does anyone have so many FAs that they overload their watchlist? --Theo (Talk) 18:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Taxman: The main difference is the voting. A remove vote may not be so easily overturned; the reviewer may not review again for various reasons.

I'd like to end by saying that I've not complicated the procedure as it is claimed; I've only added a delay clause. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

I don't mean to be difficult, but Piotrus' suggestion above would still leave the FARC page on my personal "Too much hassle" list. I'm sorry I didn't read the proposal on the Pump, but it looks like a lot of other people didn't either. OK, in logic, it seems I should now either remove new rules 4 and 5 from WP:FARC, or remove my own nomination of Assassination (which was made in knowledge of these rules, I'm afraid, just like the nominations that Nichalp removed). Perhaps we could have a quick straw poll here to help me choose, since voting at the Pump was so slight? Just as a straw in the wind, please sign below. Feel free to comment separately on the question of restoring/deleting particular nominations (although I do think these follow as a logical consequence). I know that Filiocht, for one, is away at weekends, so Monday night UTC seems to me like a good time to take stock of views registered here. Btw, I'd be grateful if somebody would comment on the other questions I ask above, too, like: what's wrong with just leaving the nominations up a week longer? Bishonen | talk 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Nichalp's rules have now been deleted from the project page by Neutrality, I'm pasting them here so readers can make sense of the references in the poll to "rules 4 and 5" etc. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Only pages that do not adhere to the Featured article criteria may be listed.
  2. Objections raised should be actionable, else it may be ignored.
  3. On the talk page of the article, state the reasons why you think it should be removed.
  4. A warning on the article's talk page that if comments are not satisfactorily entertained, the page may be put up for removal in a week's time (the minimum period).
  5. If your objections are not satisfied in a week's time, you may list your unresolved objections here. Also add the {{farc}} template (Template:Farc) to the top of the article's talk/discussion page.
I think it would have been courteous if you had invited me to share my opinions before conducting a poll so that voters could get a balanced perspective.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete rule 4 and 5 from the new FARC instructions, and restore the nominations that were removed on the strength of them.
  1. --Bishonen | talk 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Taxman Talk 21:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) Delete as a rule, because it's just instruction creep without enough benefit that can't be gotten another way. But keep as a suggestion to list problems on the talk page so they can be resolved before listing.
  3. What Taxman said. --Conti|✉ 22:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I think Bishonen is correct. Giano | talk 12:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Adding an article to FARC and adding {{farc}} to the article's talk page is sufficient warning. If there is a concern that it is too quick and easy to demote an article through FARC, add 7 days to the time an article needs to sit on FARC before it can be demoted, achieving a similar result without the additional rules. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. The templates should be enough if an editor has kept a featured article on his/her watchlist (and if not, why worry). A longer time on FARC is also something that I would prefer. --Theo (Talk) 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Needless instruction creep that had no consensus to go live. All one should need to do is say they are working on the issues and ask that no action be taken for a while. So instead of having a mandatory one week waiting period before listing we should let any user delay deFAing for an additional 7 days if they say they are working on fixing valid issues. That way there are no needless roadblocks to listing here and there is enough time to allow for valid issues to be fixed. --mav 23:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Instruction creep. Ambi 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Not only instruction creep, but prevents substandard FAs from being delisted.Neutralitytalk 04:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Agree with Taxman - this is instruction creep and makes things more difficult for us. However, Nichlap has a point and I'd like to see the sections 'warned' added ayway - I like to warn some articles that can be saved before I officialy FARC them, and having such section here would help me remember what I warned :) Ths way we can both have the cake and eat it :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Retain on the grounds that it is currently far too easy to list things on FARC and that most nomintators lack the simple consideration required to notify editors that their articles are being nominated. And could we have a voluntary ban on the term "instruction creep", which almost always means "adding rules I don't agree with"? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'll say keep 4 & 5 until a better solution is found. I probably wouldn't be opposed to dropping the waiting period if the FARC nominator is also required to look at the original FAC nomination and leave a note on the nominator's talk page, as well as any other major contributors (maybe others mentioned as helpful in the nomination, or people that show up alot in the edit history). I would think that would be common courtesy, and would be easy enough to do. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Reasons mentioned above  =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep rule 4, but 5, a link to the talk page should be sufficient or at the most a summarization.--IMpbt 17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Keep -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Could someone give me a very brief summary of the issue here? Everyking 22:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This poll is to decide whether the 4th and 5th of the newly added rules at WP:FARC should stay. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Many a time, articles have been nominated as soon as they pass through FAC by those who opposed them there. This is frustrating. Unfortunately, it doesn't take too much effort on the part of voters at FARC to vote out than the few people who offer suggestions at WP:PR and vote at WP:FAC. More constructive it can be when an additional chance was given at the talk page. The process here should give more time to the editors as much as the WP:FAC. I've nominated Tamil language for FAC in the past without even references, but it went on to become a FA during the process due to constructive suggestions from editors like Taxman. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Actually it went on to FA status because you fixed the issues I (and others I'm sure) brought up. Without that it surely would not have made it. If the same thing went on at FARC, issues would be fixed and no articles removed. That's the issue here, and one week requirement before listing is not likely to change much of that. Issues can just as well be fixed while the article is on FARC and adding one more layer of red tape and beaurocracy isn't a real solution. - Taxman Talk 04:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry that my comment was tangential to the point of discussion. The point I wished to make was, if the objections were raised at the talk page rather than here, it may be treated more as a constructive suggestion than wishing to remove an article's FA status. It's more a matter of perception. -- Sundar 04:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Different Vote

I am not entirely clear on this. 5 follows pretty much from the first 3 guidelines. Unless people can skip the first three guidelines not having 5 does not make much sense. And if the first 3 are voluntary then we dont need them at all. We can probably change 5 a bit by removing the need for citing the reasons in detial and instead just ask people to link to the talk page for everyone to see. I also think if everyone agrees on the first three guidelines than 4 is unnesscary as this would already have been thrashed out on the talk page. I would like some form of discussion on a FA's talk page before it being listed on FARC as it simply wastes peoples time when we have to review and vote on it and then rereview and revote if the author changes the article. A number of article problems can be easily addressed on the talk page, failing which it should be listed on FARC. On the side note while we are at it we should also quantify the time before a new FA can be nomanated on FARC or a article renominated. So my vote is for the following modified proposal:

  1. Mention, on the talk page of the article, which all FA criteria the page lacks, or if the text is a gross POV.
  2. A time period of a minimum of seven days should be given so that those who handle/watch the page can respond to the reviewer's comments.
  3. A mention that if comments are not satisfactorily entertained, the page may be nominated as a FARC in a week's time.
  4. If his/her grouses are still unaddressed, only then may the reviewer move to the FARC. A short summary of the objections along with a link to the talk page of the article should be provided.
  5. Users should wait a minimum of 30 days before nominating an article which has gained FA status (from the date of promotion to FA) or renominating a failed FARC (from the date it was removed from FARC).

Feel free to modify the last point as 30 days is an arbitrary number that i just came up with. kaal 07:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Courtesy (Nichalp)

Nichalp, in response to your post above: I'm surprised that you edit the instructions on WP:FARC, and place a note about having done so on this talk page, and then complain that discussion (which you refer to as "goings-on on this page") follows. I don't understand it. As you say above, "We are given a Talk page, why not use it?" You complain of discourtesy from me in particular, in those words: "I think it would have been courteous if you had invited me to share my opinions before conducting a poll so that voters could get a balanced perspective." I understand that complaint even less. You started this debate, why do you need an invite to contribute to it..? I was rather frustrated that you didn't respond to my own first post headed "I object a lot" (I did check that you were around on the site, diligently editing), and this frustration was one of the reasons I created the poll. Did you not check back on WP:FARC and its talk page after posting your "new rules" on them, via your watchlist, for instance? If not, I would call that proceeding a little discourteous, though I would certainly assume good faith, and I'm very much assuming that you want to improve the FARC process, and that that is the reason you're prepared to spend time arguing here. Please do the same for me. I ask you not to suppose that you have a monopoly of good intentions among FARC editors, and that other contributors come here to amuse themselves by "bringing out the slime" (!) (not sure of the exact sense of that phrase—is it the editors themselves, or their critical FARC votes, that are the slime? Or is it my comments on Assassination in particular, since you address your remark to me by name?). You might want to withdraw that wording.

I don't believe I've given you any reason to regard me as a "nomination trigger-happy" editor (hello? have we met?) with contempt for others' work, or in need of a lecture on courtesy. As far as I know, Assassination is the first nomination I've ever made on FARC. OTOH, I have in fact copyedited, commented on, and I believe improved many FAs authored by others, before and after they got featured. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response: I do not keep too many articles on my watchlist. I have 22, I had 42 last week. I prefer to have as little as possible so that I can concentrate more on writing FA's, DYKs and taking care of objections on FAC (I do a lot more than that though). I do however, keep track of my previous 100 contributions, and when Piotrus had nominated new articles I had pointed out the new rules to him (so much for being discourteous). I monitored this talk page for about two days, but since nothing new came up, I stopped checking. Now if you were following up on my edits, why didn't you page me after you saw that I wasn't responding? I have made it a point to respond to any query posted on my talk page, and I don't see why you assumed that I was not interested in replying to your post. While I haven't criticised you or anyone else for not seeing my draft in VP, so why do you have to apply the same for me?
Yes, I was miffed when you proceeded to have a vote without asking me to comment. Does a jury ever pronounce a verdict by listening to only one party? Regarding the slime: you've misunderstood what I meant by it. The FAC has long lists of objections, strikeouts, further lists of edits; making the entire process messy. That's the "slime", and could have easily been left at the Talk page instead of FARC. It wasn't directed to you, nor your assassination nomination, so if it you thought it was a personal attack, I apologise. Now, I also don't see why you wish to portray my actions as unilateral: not to suppose that you have a monopoly of good intentions among FARC editors. I did all possible things in my knowledge to have the procedure tightened, I really can't be held at fault if I did not receive an objection then. I haven't drastically changed the rules -- only added a delay clause. I have neither touched your assassination article or have commented on it; so please do not bring up presumptuous statements.
Trigger-happiness? -- ie impatience. It struck me that your unwillingness to wait for a week: "doesn't correspond to how I work," is not how things should be done here. While I agree that your "assasination" nomination was based on good faith, and I don't think that it is up to the mark; I don't suppose others could be so forgiving as you, and may list any random article here. What do you know, I may suddenly decide to nominate the Tony Blair tomorrow, on the grounds that images used are not licenced under a free licence (This had been done in the past). I've clearly pointed out the irony of the situation with this example. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I feel that I have to add a (brief) comment here. I have had a lot of dealings with Bishonen here over the past number of months and have always found her friendly, helpful, polite and funny. Admittedly, this issue is probably the first one where we have disagreed, but I believe that she is here, as always, concerned with maintaining the highest possible standards on Wikipedia, as am I, and as are you, Nichalp. It is perfectly possible for us all to share this common goal but to see different ways of getting there. It saddens me that these (relatively) minor differences all too easily become pretexts for mudslinning and name calling. Always remember Wikilove and to assume good faith, people. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Filiocht: Agreed we all have the best intentions for wikipedia, I don't dispute this. I didn't intend it as a personal attack on Bishonen, I was illustrating a point, and she thought it was directed toward her. She may be polite, funny et. al. (I don't dispute that); but my main point was that she could have informed me about this poll after seeing that there was no response from my side. Thankfully, you did. I hold no malice toward Bishnonen, and hopefully all what has happened here will remain here, and not be the base for future disputes. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
And I knew of the poll because Bish notified me. I guess she assumed I'd pass it on to you, which I did. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


Of all the tempests I've seen brewed in the teapot of Wikipedia, this is one of the oddest, I must say. Continuing comparisons to forensics are bizarre. First because argument by analogy is a fallacy and second because there are no damages involved, either financial or corporal, in an article getting or losing a prestige point. I know full well that user:Nichalp can understand a rhetorical figure ("that's not how I work"), but he or she is choosing not to in this case to heighten the umbrage. Yikes. User:bishonen is complaining that the new instructions are creep because they require that we make, essentially, some separate memo system so that we remember exactly when we saw a bad article, that we clock the complaint so that we time it perfectly before bringing the nomination here, etc., and that gets a reply that surely implies that she is just too trigger happy about wanting to demote articles. Again, I know full well that Nichalp is a better reader than that. Everyone, I think, worries about POV warriors and enemies jumping to FARC to try to do damage to another user's peace of mind, and everyone is worried that votes are too view, and everyone, I think, worries that a nomination may be made without sufficient investigation. Of course that's valid, but what isn't valid is to assume that there is only one possible remedy for these concerns. As Bishonen says, the issue is the attitudes of the voters and the nominators, and this can't really be overcome with a waiting period, no matter how long, because the same incuriosity and laziness will follow to talk pages, and we're left with a zero-sum game. Pretty please, folks, let's not treat disagreement as a thing that needs to be thundered at, and if one does wish to thunder, please, please, let's direct our thunderbolts at the issues and not the people. Geogre 12:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, I find that I did not express myself clearly enough above. Nichalp, Bishonen is neither rude nor trigger happy and I wanted, and still want, to completely disassociate myself from these remarks of yours. I'd rather that nothing was done about my concerns on the process than see a serious and valuable editor like Bishonen being the subject of name calling here or anywhere else. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Filiocht, I don't believe you've read my above comments. I haven't directly accused her of being *rude*; neither have I suggested that she isn't a valuable contributor, or that *she* (only) is trigger-happy. I was just replying to each users' views and I was quoted out of context. I've firmly stated my points above and I hope you can go through them once again. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Idea: Delay FARC voting

Would it work if the voting on FARC was delayed? I mean, let anyone nominate an article, include specific objections on the FARC page, and leave a note on the original FAC nominator's talk page. Then the nomination stays on FARC for a week without voting, just discussing and addressing the issues that the nominator brought up. After a week, people can start voting (and voting is left open for a week or two). A line could be used like the one in FPC (something like "move nominations below the line after 7 days"), and once it's below the line, people can vote. If the objections haven't been satisfactorily addressed, FA status is removed, if it has been fixed, it stays. People who don't want to work on the article don't have to (they can just vote 7 days after the nomination), and people who want to work on the article can get started right away. I think this would make it about as easy to nominate articles as before, while eliminating the wasted energy/work associated with repeated reviewing by a bunch of wikipedians and re-voting. What do you think? --Spangineer (háblame) 18:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • ...a.k.a.... Piotrus's idea (see talk about "warning" above). Woops. I'm not as creative as I thought =). --Spangineer (háblame) 18:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Piotrus' idea is good, and is acceptable to me. As long as there is some information on the talk page as to "what is wrong with the article, please clean it up before nomination to FARC..." I'm satisfied. WRT my proposal, if 3 weeks is a long time for delisting, shorten the FARC voting to a week.  =Nichalp (Talk)=
  1. I rather like that. It solves both sides of the problem, IMO. Nominate when you spot it and explain why. Indicate that you told the original authors. Wait a period of time before voting (although a week may be long; 72 hr is probably sufficient to overcome the rotation of the earth). Geogre 12:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the timing should be a case by case thing, depending on the discussion. I can see how in some cases, it could take several days to rework sections and such, while in other cases, no one pays attention to the article and it just sits, in which case a shorter "warning" period would be acceptable. So here, Raul's suggestion would be wise - keep time guidelines general. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to assume that everyone logs in almost daily. I realise that we do not want to wait months to ensure that the editor is not on a long vacation but a week seems like the minimum to me. Or perhaps give the editor a long window in which to log in and a much shorter one, (say 24 hours) from their first login after notification. All such times being very loose, of course!—Theo (Talk) 18:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All things considered, I'd keep the old rules but add an optional section for 'Warned articles' above or below the voting. The section would be same as current FARC, but with no voting - although comments are always allowed. The nominator of the article can strike out his nomination anytime if he feels that the objections can be adressed, and then the article would be moved to 'failed FARC nominations'. After a week (more or less), if the nominator feels the objections are still valid, he can move it to the voting section. We might want to create a different template 'FARC-warning list' for that, or use normal FARC. Note that this section would be optional, so ppl who don't have time to fuss over this and hate any instruction creep can continue FARCing as they did before. What do you think about this? If there are no objections over the next week or so, I'd suggest we add such a section to the current FARC page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem with "optional" is that it probably won't keep people from nominating clearly high-quality articles on a whim. They'll just decide not to go through the hassle. I think that's sort of the point, that a system be simple to use and will lower the number of abuses. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have another idea, based on this idea of yours. I'll explain it in detail later when the sun rises my side :).  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to go along with this, provided the time is a week. As Theo says, we cannot assume the same level of obsession amongst everyone. Personally, I never log on at weekends and at a bank holiday weekend, a 72 hour limit would pass me by easily. Filiocht | Blarneyman
Adding a page to FARC is a warning. Articles have to stay on the list for a minimum of two weeks anyway. If that is thought to be too short, wouldn't it be simpler just to make the minimum time on FARC three or four weeks? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem isn't that the voting time is too short, but that it's too much hassle to read the article, vote defeature, and then have to go back to the article a week later, reread it, and strike out your vote. I think it's more simple to have a separate editing process at the beginning, which allows concerns to be addressed, before letting people vote. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is what I propose based on Piotrus' idea. We keep a transcluded page for removal like the {{to do}} template . Say {{FARC warning}}. Add a category to this page so that editors at FARC can see what's coming soon. Stick it on the article talk page and mention what is bad. After a minimum period (a week seems to be the consensus), change it to {{FARC}} on the lines of {{Peerreview}} changing to {{oldpeerreview}}. Voting now begins (if necessary), which lasts for a week(?). Total time 2 weeks, same as it currently stands.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

So then the instructions would read "Put {{FARC warning}} on the talk page and present objections there, and then after about a week, if your concerns have not been addressed, replace the template with {{FARC}} and nominate on FARC". So then in order to put anything on FARC, it must have had that warning template for about a week (or whatever time period that gets selected). Makes sense to me. It'll be a change in that if you want to nominate an article for FARC, you don't immediately put it on the FARC page, but I don't think it would be that tough to implement. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, although I'd recommend that this is all optonal. In the end, our goal is to weed out the really week FAs, and the good ones can defend themselves as they always do. No point in complicating obligatory rules that after all seem to work rather well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it were made optional no one would go through this procedure.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Raul's take on the rules and proposals

I should probably put a note in here (considering I *did* write the original FARC rules, as well as rules for a lot of others pages). The rules for any page should be designed to minimize the amount of work everyone, but especially hte maintainer - has to do. Also, and I cannot say this strongly enough - avoid setting specific deadlines and times - if you look at the FAC instructions, it avoids saying with specificity how long nominations stay there. Some go quickly, some go slowly. Setting specific deadlines only makes tremendous headaches for the person/people who maintain the page. With that said, nobody wants to see surprise de-featurings. I see no problem with requiring hte nominator to drop (at least) a {{farc}} tag on the nominated article. After that, it's the job of people who have that article on their watchlist to respond. I also think that nominations and objections here, as with the FAC, have to be actionable. →Raul654 07:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a specific time period --> "a week's time (the minimum period)" is the phrase used.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Raul here. Just have a minimum time period and give the maintainers the ability to extend that if they see that somebody is working on the issues or the vote if close. --mav 02:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point

Looks like an anon has proven my point by adding Prince Albert alternative education programs, an article likely to be deleted, forget even being a FA: See [1]  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Losing the FAC nomination page link

When a featured article is demoted, the FA template is removed. This means that the link to the FAC nomination page is lost. Should we not conserve this, using a template similar to {{facfailed}}? violet/riga (t) 18:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea, although quite a few of the defeatured articles have no such page (they were promoted under the old system). →Raul654 18:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Good idea - I guess we will need a new template, say {{formerFA}} with links to the relevant WP:FAC sub-page, the WP:FARC archive, and Wikipedia:Former featured articles (quite a back-log there to deal with!). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would probably be ideal, if it is worth the work to someone. - Taxman Talk 14:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
New template created... anyone want to volunteer to flag the former featured articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only problem is the archive has been archived. People won't know which of the archive archives to look in. The only way to fix that I see is to have the archive all in one page or set up subpages for all current and past FARC nominations. Also the resubmitting link is a little odd since there is no section on FAC for resubmissions. - Taxman Talk 15:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the template - I simply copied and adapted {{FACfailed}}, which is where the "resubmitting" blurb came from. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok I fixed the resubmit thing by eliminating the section link, but the archive problem is the bigger one. Is there any problem with just one really big archive? Or do you see another way? - Taxman Talk 17:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
If FARC nominations were transcluded sub-pages, that would make it easier to link to old discussion for new nominations. Disadvantage there would be that all the old nominations on archive pages would be redlinks. Worldtraveller 17:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone was willing to move all those too. - Taxman Talk 17:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Probably wouldn't be too huge a job would it? I don't think there are an enormous number of nominations to move. If people think this is the way to go, I'd be happy to help moving stuff. Worldtraveller 09:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
126 in the archive. I would also support transclusion, though that, of course, means updating the submission description. violet/riga (t) 12:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can help too: query whether we should have {{FARCfailed}} too. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there's general agreement that transcluding sub-pages would be a good way to proceed, we could get started on that. Not sure of the best place to start - copying old nominations from the current archives into subpages, then adding {{FormerFA}} to talk pages, then changing the procedure for new nominations?
FARCfailed doesn't seem necessary to me - having a tag saying "some people at one point thought this article wasn't good enough to be featured" somewhat undermines the tag saying it's good enough to be featured, don't you think? Worldtraveller 15:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can also help. I'm not really a friend of these "This once was on peer review" kind of templates, but linking to the FARC discussion seems to be a good reason to have a formerFA template. When using subpages, what do we do with renominations? Baroque was nominated twice, once it was kept and the second time it got defeatured. --Conti|✉ 15:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Back to the left - as ContiE says, the main reason for a {{FARCfailed}} template, by analogy with {{FACfailed}}, would be to provide a link to the previous discussion, so it is obvious when (if) pages are renominated what the issues were the last time around.

For re-nominations, the standard approach seems to be to move the old one to a sub-page of the sub-page, so {{Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/XXX}} would be moved to {{Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/XXX/archive1}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite recently I created {{Featuredmoved}} because some featured articles were renamed and thus lost the link. We might look at having a similar option for FACs and FARCs. violet/riga (t) 17:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah - a problem I have faced recently with lists on WP:FLC being renamed to reflect comments. The best solution I could think of is to move the discussion to the right subpage for the new name (or, not quite so neatly, to create subpages for the new name with a redirect to the discussion under the old name) . -- ALoan (Talk)

I've moved the current FARC nominees to transcluded subpages as a first step - the FARC instructions may need modificaton (although the process is pretty clear). I've also edited {{farc}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start copying archived discussions into subpages. I will start with the March to July 2004 archives. Worldtraveller 13:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, well that didn't take too long. I'll do the other archive pages during the afternoon. Worldtraveller 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've done the current archive - I'll leave the other ones for you. Did you add the new talk page templates, as above? (I've not yet but will now)-- ALoan (Talk) 14:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice work guys – you've done a great job. violet/riga (t) 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't too painful! All archived discussions are in transcluded subarticles now, but I haven't added the formerFA template to the ones I've done. Will do that shortly. Worldtraveller 16:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Date FAs

In the spirit of Raul's point, how about we make FARC even simpler. Let's kill it off completely and instead mark each FA on the FA page with a date of elevation to FA states and a link to the most recent "approved revision". Pcb21| Pete 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would that mean giving up on trying to keep featured articles at a high standards, and accepting that the live verson may be below featured status, but that would be OK because we have the "approved" version in the edit history? Would we revalidate the live version, say, every six months or year? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My hope is that it would show how our standards are rising over time.
Maybe we could say "This article was first approved on XX/YY/ZZ (link to version). As FA standards have risen, it was re-checked on dates A, B and C (link, link and link) and was found to meet/not meet these standards."
Exactly how it would work is open for debate, but the general idea is that we provide finer-grained and thus potentially more useful page than a binary "is this featured? YES/NO" Pcb21| Pete 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Instead of simplifying, I think this just adds a lot more work. The article validation feature coming in Wikimedia 1.5 carries a lot of the benefits of what you seem to be going for (and more it seems to me), seems like it has widespread support, and thus may fill the need. - Taxman Talk 17:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Taxman - I do like the binary system of the FAs. I accepted long ago that there might be some older ones that are not quite up to snuff, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing - just an indication that our expectations have gone up. I think this proposal needlessly complicates things. →Raul654 17:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just found this page and chipping in. Couldn't FAs be reviewed every six months or so? I also think think that marking each FA with its date of elevation to FA is a good idea, it would allow easier identification of older FAs that may need to be looked at if the criteria changes/has changed. Hiding 5 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
Given that there are well over 600 FAs now, if they were all automatically reviewed every 6 months then we would have to review roughly 4 FAs each day, every day. Isn't FARC sufficient to pick out the bad ones?
In a sense, the {{featured}} template marks the date when an article becomes featured, in two ways: the template is usually added on or slightly after the date of being featured, and it also provides a link to the FAC discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)
Fair enough. Hiding 5 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)

I agree with Pete that there needs to be some finer grained structure. However, there is no binary structure featured/not featured. Most former featured articles are still pretty good, they usually just lack sources which is not that much of a problem if the content is undisputed common knowledge. Former featured articles really are a class of their own. You are probably spoiled it you work on FAC, PR and FARC a lot. If you want to have a look at articles that really need work look at WP:IDRIVE, and most articles in Wikipedia are in that stage. I would favor to have an additional class above featured, where the voting system is more objective: right now an article can get featured if it gets only four votes. There is no peer-review in the true sense of the word, where, say, medical articles are being judged by declared doctors etc.--Fenice 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

FARCe

I suggest to introduce some kind of fair rule for removal, like a majority or a two-third majority can vote the article off. --Fenice 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a rough consensus standard, just like most other things on Wikipedia. The top description says "it will be removed from the featured articles list if the consensus is to remove". That's fairly well defined. And what's up with changing the 2 weeks to 20 days. 2 weeks has been the standard for a long time IIRC. - Taxman Talk 15:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the way it is at the moment is clear enough. I also changed 20 days back to two weeks, because it's been two weeks for as long as I can remember. Worldtraveller 15:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
If that were so, I wonder why I had to stand by for the farce for 20 days?
Well consensus is consensus, taxman. It makes it pointless trying to remove embarrassing eyesores like Anschluss.--Fenice 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Because I don't archive nominations exactly after 14 days, that's just the minimum time a nomination should stay. If there's a clear consensus either way I remove them quickly, if not I wait a few more days. Or (like in this case) I have personal stuff to do that keeps me away from this page for a while. --Conti|✉ 16:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know you were the only person doing maintenance here. I'll try to help out if you don't get around to it next time.--Fenice 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The archives

Just wondering if it would make things simpler to have an archive of nominations that resulted in demotion and of ones that didn't? Then, the relevant subpage can just be linked from the appropriate archive, without the need to add the text to each one stating whether the article retained or lost its featured status. Worldtraveller 15:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean you want separate archives instead? Seems like even more work to me, and I kind of like it the way it is, where you can look at one archive all in one and see how the conversations went. In the end I guess it's up to the person doing all the archiving as to what way they would like to do it, and if a change is made, who is willing to sort them all that way. - Taxman Talk 15:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I like the idea of linking rather than showing the nominations in the archive. We could get rid of the subarchives that way. I don't know about the sorting tho, we could also easily add a "(kept)" or "(removed)" after the link. --Conti|✉ 15:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to have them on separate (kept/removed) alphabetic and/or thematic lists with links, but there would have to be subarchives anyway, I don't see how you could get rid of these?--Fenice 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to keep the chronological list, it makes it much easier if you search for something. If there would be just links there is no need for an archive, even with hundreds of links the page wouldn't get too big. --Conti|✉ 16:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of how it's done on WP:FAC, with separate logs of successful nominations and unsuccessful ones, rather than all nominations logged by date. When I said 'link' I meant 'transclude', so one could still read all the conversation on one page, just that the articles which remained featured would have the discussion on one archive page while those that were demoted would have the discussion logged on another. With the transcluded nomination pages it would be no more work to archive in this way than it is to archive by date, but might be more convenient. It makes more sense to me, at least. Worldtraveller 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the main issue is not the sorting according to date, alphabete or whatever, but that there is some way to find all removed articles in one list/page. I have been looking for a list like that before, when I was searching for articles to be nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive.--Fenice 18:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
WP:FFA is the list of all former featured articles, sounds like what you're looking for. Worldtraveller 19:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you.--Fenice 20:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia former featured articles does pretty much the same. I'm not sure if we need two pages for this. --Conti|✉ 02:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, what would be the purpose of having two archives? --Conti|✉ 02:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Coming to this rather late, but don't Wikipedia:Former featured articles and Category:Wikipedia former featured articles (added by {{FormerFA}}, for FARC nominees that have been demoted and not re-featured) and Category:Wikipedia featured article removal candidates (contested) (added by {{FARCfailed}}, for FARC nominees that remain features) give you the lists you want? Or is it more a question of organising the archive?
FWIW, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log has separate "featured" and "failed" sub-pages for each month. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cache

This page needs a cache refresh link. JDG 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Conti|✉ 02:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Expiration -- is this an admin task?

Who's supposed to remove nominations to the archive once they have failed? Is this an administrator-only task, or should I feel free to move the month-old failed nomination to remove Libertarianism? It's still garnering scattershot votes, even though the procedure states that it should only have been up for two weeks. --FOo 22:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Not an admin task, no - ContiE did the archiving pretty much exclusively until recently, but feel free to help out. Please remember to add the link to discussion to the archive and amend the talk page template to {{FARCfailed}} or {{formerFA}} as appropriate. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - but I made a couple of omissions: please add a line to the nomination to indicate whether the article was demoted or not, and amend Wikipedia:Former featured articles if it was demoted. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Done. --FOo 14:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Yup, I did the archiving until now, but everyone is free to help out. Personal stuff kept me from doing much work on Wikipedia lately, so I would be glad if someone takes this task from me, at least for a while. --Conti|✉ 15:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've cleaned up another 6, so we are not too far behind now. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Archive_2&oldid=1081077159"