Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 9

Request for comment on changes to the "Today's featured article" slot on the main page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As always, thank you to all who participated in this discussion. There is consensus in favor of option 1, reproduced below.

Rerun TFAs. The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for rerunnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.

Most participants did not have any explicit objections to option 2 (running featured lists in the "today's featured article" spot), but indicated a preference for option 1. Some participants preferred option 1 because they felt that featured articles and featured lists were different processes that shouldn't be mixed; others wanted to preserve the current layout of the Main Page as much as possible (featured articles and lists are currently run in separate sections); and others preferred option 1 because they felt that featured articles generally have greater value to the project than featured lists.

A common argument was that reruns would help improve and maintain the quality of the articles themselves, as editors would be encouraged by another opportunity to have their work appear on their Main Page. Additionally, re-running featured articles would allow greater flexibility for the today's featured article slot to recognize anniversaries. As proposed, at least five years should pass from a featured article's last appearance in the TFA slot before the next appearance. Moving forward, with regards to "general selection criteria", that's for a second discussion, of course, but there was some talk of giving preference to articles whose featured status was removed, then restored later, as well as having editors carefully review rerun candidates to ensure that their quality has not deteriorated since their last Main Page appearances. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Background

The "Today's featured article" (TFA) slot on the main page showcases a different featured article (FA) every day. FAs are not being produced as fast as the TFA slot uses them. The number of available featured articles is also reduced by the fact that many older FAs have degraded to the point where they are no longer suitable for TFA. See this listing of FAs marked for cleanup, and the featured article log to see the rate of production of FAs.

A separate issue is the need for variety of subjects in the TFA slot. Because some productive FA writers have written a large number of FAs in narrow subject areas, it is getting harder to avoid some repetition in the type of articles showcased on the main page.

Just realized I never signed this, so: Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Options

There are two options presented in this RfC.

1. Rerun TFAs. The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for rerunnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
2. Run TFLs. One or two featured lists will run each week on the main page in place of TFAs. The TFA coordinators will decide whether one or two are needed, and the TFL coordinators will be in charge of selecting these and writing the blurbs.

Survey

Please support option 1 or support option 2 in this section.

• Support Option 1 -- I tend to be in favour of minimalist change when it comes to the main page, so I think we should keep it as the TFA slot, and simply re-run older TFAs to take up the slack that Mike highlights. The long-standing rule about not re-running TFAs except in exceptional circumstances made perfect sense a decade ago (about the time I started working on FAs) but now, even if we didn't have a shrinking pool of new FAs, I don't see why we shouldn't give well-maintained TFAs five or more years old another chance for their place in the spotlight. I'd agree with those who suggest that this would provide some added incentive for improving older TFAs that are no longer maintained, and restoring Former Featured Articles that have appeared on the main page. TFL already has a slot to itself further down the page, and I have no problem with TFLs running more frequently there than they do now. That makes more sense to me than putting TFLs in two slots or, if we removed TFLs from down the page, restricting TFLs to two per week in the TFA slot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am open to both - I think there is a lot on the mainpage and would be happy to see TFA and TFL share a spot rather than the extra spot down-screen for TFL currently. Am also okay with cautious re-running of FAs over five years old, though prefer to keep this to a minimum. I have thought about this quite a bit and can't honestly say which I favour, but I do agree that we need to do something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, but would support 2 particularly if we can have reruns be focused on under-represented areas or topic areas that are more traditional for an encyclopedia. (Eg, while I write about video games, I know we have a disproportionate number relative to other topic areas, so I would have no problem with excluding VGs from this rerun allowance). --MASEM (t) 15:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  Masem, just checking that you have this the right way round -- option 2 is TFLs, so I don't quite see why you'd support 2 on the basis of a condition that would apply to option 1. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)'/

  Yes, my support is preferably 1 if we can limited, but would still also support 2 should 1 not gain consensus/not be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support both, with Option 2 as my top choice (if it had to be a choice). In terms of their presentation and function on the main page, TFA and TFL are effectively identical; distinguishing them there is of interest only to Wiki insiders. Mixing TFL into the TFA slot just a couple of times per week will significantly extend the non-repeat lifetime of TFA (assuming no change in promotion rates). Repeats could extend TFA indefinitely, but I think those should be used more sparingly. Still, with a several-year delay between repeats, it shouldn't be very noticeable to readers and provides incentive to maintain/restore FAs that have already been run at TFA. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer option 1. Either is a reasonable solution. Neither is preferable to "just write more FAs, people!" but that's not fully within our control. I think mixing in a list is the best choice. Re-running old FAs is OK, but I'd restrict it to ones that hadn't run in five years, or ones that had been defeatured and then refeatured. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 -- I see the value in Featured Lists, but I think Featured Articles are significantly more valuable. They are really what the whole project is all about, and I think showcasing them, even if they have been featured on the front page before, is more valuable than option 2. -- Shudde ^talk 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2 - While 1 sounds like a good idea, I think the reality of the logistics are not feasible to do the checking for its FA quality. The minute an article achieves FA, "anybody" can edit it. And they do. As long as it isn't vandalism or disruptive editing, most of the edits stay. "At least five years ago"? I can give you some really personal insight - Texas Revolution is less than 2 years as an FA, and the revolution itself was nothing compared to drive-by editors, registered or not, who are sure they know more than the last editor. Same as any FA, I assume? — Maile (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  It might be worth clarifying here that we already do run FAs more than five years old; Dover Athletic, which ran in January of this year, became an FA over eight years ago. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 -- High-quality articles are the life blood of this encyclopedia. In a utopian future, we would work to take all of our articles to FA status. We should continue, to the extent possible, to incentivize the creation and maintenance of featured articles, and I think option 1 is the best way to achieve that objective. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - then we will never run out. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer 1 I would support both, but would prefer re-running old TFAs before tapping into TFLs. I like the occasional extra TFL we do from time to time as a different section, and would like to keep that going as well. --Jayron32 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer 1, for the same reason as Jayron32. I also think Notecardforfree raises a very good point that we need to not just create FAs, but also maintain them, and rerunning them would encourage that. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support option 1. oppose option 2—FLs should remain in their own area of the Main Page to avoid conflating the separate processes. Option 1 will do nicely for now as a solution to this issue. Imzadi 1979 → 05:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - But would prefer if the emphasis were on articles that have not run for a long time and/or have been FFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option1 --- Five years is more than enough to allow normal mortals to forget that an article was ever showcased, so for me they can be showcased again. MuDavid (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 I have no problem running five-year-old+ TFAs again, provided that they're up to contemporary standards. I know that when my 4.5-year-old article, Courageous-class aircraft carrier, ran a week ago, it needed a surprising amount of updating and there were plenty of worthwhile changes that various editors made that I should have caught when reviewing it, even aside from the ones caused by annoying changes in the MOS like date-range format. And I need to blow up HMS Royal Oak (08) from '07 and rework it extensively before it's ready for TFA. So I think that we need some mechanism through which the delegates can ping for interested editors for assistance. That said, I would like to see TFLs occurring a little more often as the backlog there is huge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is reasonable when there is a topical reason to run the article again such as an anniversary. Option 2 is unwise because it would tend to encourage work on such listicles which have a reputation for being lazy journalism and so would tend to hurt our reputation. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If somebody chooses to work on "listicles", I don't see why we should discourage that. Plenty of editors, myself included, have improved articles to FA status having first gained experience at FLC. I don't consider the efforts of the FL community to be lazy, as it takes quite a bit of effort to polish a list's formatting into shape (I speak from experience). Also, I don't see how having TFLs on the Main Page has done anything to harm our reputation, as TFL tends to receive the fewest complaints at WP:ERRORS. DYK has had many more issues in the past than TFL, if I'm not mistaken; our lists are very different from the type that often appears in the media, which seems to be the focus of the listicle article mentioned. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 - the only reason not to rerun TFAs is to allow more pages to get that status; if there aren't enough FAs being approved to fill all the TFAs, this reason no longer applies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer 1 – For many of the reasons given above. FL suffers from the same issues as FA, in that there are lots of similar lists on similar topics, so while introducing them might help for a while, we'd get into a cycle of limited scope with them too. The best option is allowing FAs that haven't run in a long time to re-run. Though the caveat may be that they would have to undertake some sort of review process before that happens? Harrias ^talk 13:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Relunctantly, support Option 1, as I really don't want to deal with the main page dates again, but can't see a better solution. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, with preference for 2. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Prefer 2 but allow reruns for particularly popular TFAs. Nergaal (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 provided sufficient quality checks occur for these older articles. Sam Walton (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer option 1 for the many good reasons specified above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer option 1 because it may help encourage maintenance of older TFAs, as mentioned above. Moisejp (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1: Something like a five-year cut-off for re-running, or a FFA passing for a second time would be the best way to organise this. I've nothing against FL, and would not oppose Option 2, but consider FA to be a better showcase for this particular slot on the page, and to offer more variety by definition. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 and 2 I prefer Option 1. I can't imagine one in a million casual visitors would notice. I agree that it would provide an incentive to spring clean some older FAs, and I think it's important to keep a variety of topics on the front page. That said, as much as I'd prefer 1 I'd be fine with Option 2 as well. I think recognising the FL work is a good idea too Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2, but ideally as a temporary measure that, should FA production increase, would be scaled back. Per others, a 5 year+ wait as well as being a topic of enduring significance are good criteria; the best example, running stuff from Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System every 5 years on heavy rotation would be totally fine. Also... while this might be too large a can of worms for here.... consider (gasp!) loosening standards at WP:FAC. Okay, okay, no, I don't mean weakening accuracy / neutrality expectations. But I do mean loosening stylistic / prose concerns, if the underlying content is featured-quality, as often times these felicitous turns of phrase will fade with edits over time anyway. This is tricky, though, since obviously it would be a discouragement to the fine work that copyeditors put in to help FAs. But... throwing it out there anyway, returning to ~2008 levels of FA production would be a good thing IMO, and I think there's some amount of standards creep where the perfect may have become the enemy of the good in some parts. SnowFire (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Robvanvee 16:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1. While there may be issues with some or many Featured articles, I am still confident that Featured articles at a high standard are readily available for re-Featuring on the Main Page. Featured lists seem to undergo less scrutiny, and also I am not convinced they would be a good choice to go in the upper left slot on the Main Page. MPS1992 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 for two reasons: first, it would give people an incentive to keep FAs up to code, perhaps even to rescue them at FAR; and second, often the subjects of those FAs have undergone considerable changes in the intervening years (consider Bob Dylan, our oldest continuously featured article ... now he's a Nobel laureate. If there is a significant anniversary coming up that we didn't commemorate the first time it ran on the Main Page, well, this would be the time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 as long as it includes articles that were former featured articles too. FAs have much more value than FLs and FLs have their own slot on the main page. HalfGig talk 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 and tentatively support Option 2: Given Wikipedia's age, to me it would make sense to revisit old FAs. If one appeared in, say, 2008, it is quite possible that the article has changed quite a lot over the last nine years and would likely offer any prospective readers a good read, and no-one is going to remember that it was up there in the first place anyway. And as Daniel Case notes a few lines above me, it gives an incentive for editors to revisit old FAs to ensure that they are at a high standard. As for Option 2, I think that if the FL has a good enough wordy bit for an appropriately-sized blurb then it should go up, but if it is 95% table then no, not in the FA slot. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose option one; oppose option two. After watching these discussions and giving this a great deal of thought, this where I have to land. If I absolutely had to choose, I'm with Cas. That said, I think both options function as a bandaid for a much greater problem that should be addressed. That's probably best left for another discussion. One thing though, I've spent a great deal of time this week taking a look at the FAC queue (it's been a long time since I've done that) and trying to work through some of the articles at the bottom (I'd do source reviews, but poor vision makes is difficult for pages with lots of sources). What I'm seeing is a very long (and off-putting) queue, and for some reason nominators who don't seem engaged. Perhaps we should consider archiving more readily in an attempt to conserve reviewer resources and hope to push things along. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose option 2, mild support for option 1. Lists and articles are different animals, lists already have their own slot, and there are similar problems with diversity of featured lists (they tend to skew towards sport and entertainment, rather than battles and ships). I would prefer that re-running be kept to a minimum but it could work well for date connections, especially major anniversaries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 (rerun) - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, preferably option 1 - I never understood why we even have "featured" lists in the first place if we're not even going to feature them at all in one form of another. As for option 1, I'm open to it, but for an article to be run again as an FA, it needs to be checked again to see if the article still meets the FA criteria. Just a question though: how would it be determined if a day's TFA would be an article that has already been featured before? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  We do run FLs in a block above the Featured Picture section on occasion. I think about once a week we run one of that section. --Jayron32 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. That section could be used more often though (like daily instead of once a week), and be made more prominent. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 Featured lists already have their own place on the Main Page; let's keep featured articles to featured articles, even if that means rerunning some of the older ones. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 I think it makes more sense to slow down the turnover on the Main Page generally, but given these options, number 1 makes more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 only FL have a place elsewhere and that's enough. Support option 1, with details (number of years, status of FFA, etc.) to be discussed at a later time. I suggested five years not entirely arbitrarily, but so an article that ran in a presidential year couldn't run in the next one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both with a slight preference for option #1 if I had to choose between the two. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both - If you want more featured articles, just promote more. The featured article criteria don't have to be so stringent that only formulaic articles about hurricanes get promoted. Just make it easier to get featured. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 1 best not to rerun TFAs when there are far too many FLs that have not appeared on the main page simply because TFL is only twice weekly. FLs are being produced faster than TFL is displaying them on the main page. It is also unfair for a FA to get two main page appearances when many FAs have not even gotten one yet. feminist 09:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 For the average Main Page reader, who may or may not be a regular Wikipedian, it makes more sense to have quality content that there is a small chance they have seen before than a list, which is usually a convenient and useful collection of information rather than being interesting. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 1. Until such a time as we are almost out of FA's and FL's (assuming 2 passes) that haven't been featured. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support option 2, also open to option 1 down the road — Giving featured lists a more prominent spotlight sounds like a better first choice in dealing with potentially running out of FAs to feature. It allows us to maintain the top-level quality work that we desire to showcase and gives some of the lesser known lists greater attention. If we end up in a tight spot for potential FAs/FLs down the road, then I think opening up TFA to re-runs of 5+ years is the next step. I'm strongly against lowering the bar for quality. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both but articles are more important to promote than lists. Perhaps a certain number of lists could be presented each month - 4 maximum - which is less than what is suggested but enough to test the concept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 as long as repeat articles continue to meet FA quality standards and only a small number are run, ensuring that the remaining backlog of articles still get their chance on the mainpage. Semi-support Option 2, but only if this is treated as a merger between TFA and TFL since if FLs are running in the TFA space, there shouldn't be a need for a TFL space any longer. –Grondemar 00:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support option 1, mildly oppose option 2. Rerun a FA after a long time (5 years) usually shows many changes, possibly because of changes RL (developments in RL). Lists I do not find prime encyclopedic. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support option 1 I don't oppose option 2 but I find primarily FAs to be holding a much important ground than FLs, regarding content, quality, everything. --QEDK (愛) 10:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Is it possible to run other featured things (such as featured images) in lieu of a TFL or repeating a TFA? My sense is that when a FA is not available, any other featured whatever thing should be eligible, with repeat TFAs being a last resort or when a special situation justifying a repeat use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Varying what we swap in too often might make it hard for the bots (there are 4 that support the TFA process, with multiple tasks). I'm hoping someone will discuss bot issues so we know what's possible. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Jo-Jo Eumerus's suggestion. FP already has a daily slot, three sets of FA/FL/FP coordinators seems a recipe for confusion, and surely an encyclopaedia's best work should be represented by words? We are not aiming to be a picture book. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• There does seem to be an issue. For example, Kedok Ketawa seemed too weak to merit the FA slot. My feeling is that there should be a drive to encourage FA nominations as I reckon that there's plenty of stuff which might qualify. For example, I reviewed the article flea for DYK recently and though that it was better than a lot of the very narrow topics which seem to get through FA because there isn't much to say about them. We should give more encouragement to such vital work. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you reviewed at DYK, but you linked a dab. Not enough skilled FAC reviewers to handle an increase. FAC is really intense on the reviews, the most detailed-oriented process on Wikipedia. Articles hang there for months before passing. Reviewers who do it right often take days to read through a single article. It takes multiple reviewers for one nomination, and there are only so many qualified-willing reviewers available. It takes multiple "Support"s for an article to pass. I'm involved a lot at DYK, and it's pre-school, with FAC being a doctorate-level exam. I encourage you to take one of your articles through FAC for the experience. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is up at DYK right now – it's flea. It compares well with the current FA – Marvel Science Stories. That's just 12K because there's not a lot to say as the magazine only published 15 issues. The flea article is 38K and is rated as good. Most readers would not be surprised if their positions on the main page were reversed. Also, as it was the monthly Wikimeet here, I talked to Johnbod yesterday about his work. I see him doing good work at DYK – articles like carved lacquer and so, thinking of this thread, asked him about his FA work. He indicated that he has given up on FAs because they are too much hassle. Perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't see that personal opinions of worthiness are ever going to be a substitute for the rigour of FAC. I can understand why people can find the process hard work, but that's why, on the whole, it works. "I think this article should be TFA" falls some way short of quality control. We don't run GAs because one-person reviews are too uneven Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The FA process is just based on "personal opinions of worthiness", isn't it? And it seems quite uneven too. For example, consider today's FA - Marvel Science Stories. I browse sources for this topic for a couple of minutes and soon find that its history is covered in detail in The Secret History of Marvel Comics. I wonder what the connection is and find the following remarkable fact, "Confirming that all things comic book had their genesis in Goodman's non-comics publications, the science fiction pulp Marvel Science Stories (v1 #1, August 1938) was the first Goodman publication to feature the word Marvel in its title." So, this was effectively the start of the Marvel brand which now dominates Hollywood. The FA seems to say nothing at all about this; it's just presented as a bit of SF memorabilia without this significant context. Amazing! Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The process is based on these criteria, but comprehensiveness is hard to verify, particularly for reviewers who are not expert in the relevant topic area. I wrote most of the article, and I wondered whether it was the first use of "Marvel" in a Goodman title, but I was unable to find a source for that. I can't see any relevant pages on the source you link, but feel free to either add the information yourself, or leave enough information on the article talk page for someone else to add it and cite it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I could read many pages of that source via Google books and so made an update just now. Please check it out. Andrew D. (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved it up above the discussion of the first issue; I think it fits better there. Thanks for adding that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks to you for getting the topic so far, as I enjoy reading about the history of SF. Now let's mention this at WP:ERROR to see if we can get this detail onto the main page, while there's time. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the people who comment on problems with the Main Page have a fascination for waiting until the last minute ... or in this case, 16 hours after the last minute ... to do their work. This fascination is not shared by the FAC/TFA/FAR community, and I don't want to do anything to encourage it, at ERRORS or otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative idea How about, instead of a featured article, we occasionally (say twice a week) have a pick from WP:VITAL? First from Level 1 articles, then Level 2, etc...? We'd have to make it clear these are not "some of our best work" yet, but are instead asking for volunteers to get involved and improve an important topic so that it becomes "some of our best work"? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Meah. I would rather use this as the criteria for reruns. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative idea Since the main page gets slightly fewer views on weekends (on average), the Saturday+Sunday slots could be combined to show a single FA for two days. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• alternative -- Instead of a featured article of the day how about slowing it down to featured article of the week or even month? We do not have to be part of the 24-hour hype cycle and present a new FA daily. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

GAs?

In risk of being run out of town by the locals and their pitchforks, what about including some GA articles in the mix too? (Burn him)! Remember that we are here for the reader and the average person who looks at articles doesn't know (or to be honest, care) about the differences between FA and GA status. For example, take a look at today's FA versus this GA. If you were an "average" user (IE not savy with what goes on behind the scenes), which article would you think is the "featured" one (without looking at the icons in the top right)? It's very difficult. I'm not saying open the floodgates for any old rubbish, but to include some of our better GAs, in lieu of new FAs coming through. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of the FAs were GAs, so in a sense, GAs already appear at TFA ... all it takes is extra work, and some GAs are very good, and only take a little extra work. If we had a separate process to vet GAs for the TFA slot on the Main Page, it would amount to the same thing ... a little extra vetting and work. So I don't see the advantage of creating a separate GA-vetting process ... unless there's something about the FA criteria or process that is offputting to some of our productive GA-writers. Is there? - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess the FA checkers need to pull their fingers out then. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We should be pushing good GAs to FAC. I don't think this would help with this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Dank, yes, there's something about the FA process that's offputting. I have a few GAs that I could probably get up to FA with a small amount of work, and in some ways I'd like to do it, but the thought of going through that extremely lengthy process is incredibly offputting. We currently have two noms on the page from November, six from December and six from the first week of January. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the FA process can be a bit frustrating and I'm sure there are GA authors who don't want to go through it. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, the length of review is dependent on the number of reviewers, and the more in-depth the review, the longer it is likely to be. It's always good to see more nominations; it's even better to see more reviewers. I know you chip in quite often, but anyone else who finds the step from GA to FA off putting maybe could hang around at FAC a bit and see what is involved. It's not THAT bad! I would encourage anyone with a "good GA" to push it to FAC like Cas says. And the more nominations we have, perhaps the less need for too many changes to TFA. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, newbies are welcome to make use of the recently introduced FAC mentoring process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 and Ian, thanks for the replies. Reviews seem to be taking longer. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ninety-five Theses/archive1 has been open since 7 January. By 19 January it had five supports, but it is waiting for a source review, even though Jfhutson is an experienced editor and it's sometimes unclear what a source review means at FAC. I think the longer FACs remain open, the more daunting they appear to potential reviewers too, not only potential nominators. I would suggest introducing a maximum length (say, four weeks, with exceptions only where really needed), and asking nominators to make greater use of peer review. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the problem of long review times, but I do know that what we're seeing may be a side effect of our success at attracting new, or newish, nominators. I'm seeing more of those lately, and it's not accidental ... more people are encouraging people to give FAC a try, and Brian's mentorship program is great. But the influx has hurt the ratio of nominators to available reviewers, because it takes a while for new nominators to build the confidence (and the desire) to review. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some GAs on the main page within the last 24 hours have said that ships of the Pakistan Navy were "were detected 70 nmi (130 km; 81 mi) to the northwest and northeast of Karachi" ... try this at https://maps.google.com/ please. According to the article as released on the Main Page, "Operation Trident was notable for introducing the first ship-launched missiles in combat in South Asia since the end of World War II". I would like someone to explain which ship-launched missiles were used during World War II. Are these "Good Articles" actually up to scratch? MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea of ships northeast of Karachi is amusing, but it's worth pointing out that errors have been found in articles that got through FA and TFA. There isn't an article status called "Guaranteed Perfect". Still, I don't support the idea of putting GAs in the TFA slot. We aren't that hard up for feature-level material. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We are literally one step from having ships 70 miles northeast of Karachi! Literally! I want people to think about this before they support it. "We have done even more stupid things in the past" is not an excuse! MPS1992 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not excusing the mistake, nor am I supporting the idea of running GAs in the TFA slot. But pointing out a couple of specific mistakes isn't a good argument when the alternative isn't mistake-free either. I'm encouraging you to find better arguments, not endorsing a lax attitude towards obvious errors. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Are obvious errors dealt with promptly, when they appear on the Main Page and are pointed out? MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

They ought to be if pointed out on WP:ERRORS on or before their Main Page appearance. Afterwards, take it to the article Talk page as usual. --RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Is that it? That's awful. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It's awful that you should point out problems with an article the Talk page for that article? What were you hoping for? --RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My hope is that if we are going to devote the upper left quadrant of the Main Page to an article of "Featured" quality, including an image where appropriate, then it should not be an article absolutely full of schoolboy errors. Based on experience, I regard many articles recently passed as "Good article"s as fitting the latter category, whereas I hope that featured articles are of higher quality. MPS1992 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Feel free to tell me otherwise based on your own experience and quality checks of recent GA-passed articles! MPS1992 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comments about me not supporting the idea of putting GAs in the TFA slot, and with that I'm done with this particular discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's wise, I think. MPS1992 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support The entire GA process quality is defined by the nominator/reviewer engagement. Some are FA quality, some are also terrible but there're terrible FA articles too; with a good triage there's plenty of good content out there. Bertdrunk (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose running GAs in the TFA spot. New GAs can already run in DYK; if the primary contributors want to run in the larger TFA space, let them make it through the FAC gauntlet. –Grondemar 00:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lower the FA criteria

If you need more featured articles, just make it easier for an article to be featured. Simple solution. Kaldari (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• The hardest thing about FAC is waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting for someone to perform a review. Lowering the standards won't fix that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with CT. It's not a matter of the criteria. It's a matter of actually getting reviewers.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, in my experience, many articles stall because reviewers are unfamiliar with a given (often technical) subject, and refrain from reviewing them. Regardless of their quality, they may simply not be reviewed in time before being archived. The criteria don't really play a part in this problem, and different reviewers emphasize different criteria over others anyway. As far as I can see, most failed articles are archived because they didn't get more than two reviews, not because they got many opposes. I've had to ping potentially interested reviewers more than a few time for my nominations to "survive". This is of course a result of the reviewer-pool being small. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. If we look on the FAC talk page, we can see comments like "I'm afraid I can't check for comprehensiveness, as I have no knowledge of the subject". That is a problem, especially for editors who focus on obscure or technical subjects (like me).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And of course, as always, the best way to get reviews is to review yourself. Even outside a specialist area it's easy enough to comment on prose and sourcing. Or just do image or source reviews. I notice that at least one article sliding down FAC at present is one where a previous nomination FAC had several reviews, but the editor never reviewed anything himself. Of course you don't have to review, but if you don't there is little point complaining Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: "...more than two reviews..." Well there's the problem. Why do we require more than 2 reviews? Just drop the requirement to 2 reviews (or 1!) and the problem will be solved. I would much rather see new, interesting articles featured (with some grammar errors) than having to read the same hurricane articles over and over for the rest of my life. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, we already have a recognized content process that requires only one reviewer for promotion. Suggesting that we should be promoting FAs "with some grammar errors" or other fundamental flaws is absurd; putting them on the main page even more so. I wouldn't rate an article with grammatical errors higher than Start-class. As an aside, I'm not sure why you keep carrying on about the insidious hurricane articles – it's been fully 10 months since the last hurricane article FA promotion. Misdirected anger? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, why even have different processes if there is little to no difference between them? It would be pointless. --FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it had to happen at some point... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Testing the Articlehistory template

It's hard to say what a closer will do with Option 2, so the TFA coords aren't requesting an early close, but Option 1 is almost unanimous, and it will require some tweaks to the article history template, so we asked for help over at Template_talk:Article history. We're told that the template is a "complex Lua module", so we'd like to field-test the changes by rerunning a couple of TFAs; any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2017

There's a problem with this TFA that hits the Main Page in 24 hours. It currently says: "The first [movement] is in sonata form and is longer than the opening movement of every concerto that Mozart had previously written." The article text is fine, but in concise, TFA-style writing, I usually see "a Mozart concerto" rather than "a concerto Mozart had written". When I tried to change it, I got reverted. The page is now protected. What would you guys prefer? Personally, I like "... longer than any opening movement from Mozart's previous concertos." - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is fine although I would prefer the preposition of, not from. For the record the two changes you made, which I reverted, were different and did not work. This one is good and an improvement on both your and my previous attempts. Perhaps as the sole author of the article I could have been notified of this discussion? I found it only by accident. Syek88 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, and throw it in without reading the other, to aoid the next:) I like being short, and the term "Mozart concerto" appears, just two sentences before, "It features the largest array of instruments of any Mozart concerto". I prefer the author's version for three reasons:
  • It's the author's , and I have been told to respect the wishes of principal editors for years.
  • It avoids the above-mentioned repetition, but mainly:
  • In the construction you propose, the word "concerto" comes late for the comparison, also the "previously " qualifies "concerto" (and should therefore better come afterwards) because it's not true for those he wrote later.

My 2ct, - I wrote the blurb, and - as always - tried to stay close to the style of the author, - compare this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "previously" was never the best word. The article originally used "hitherto", but that was understandably criticised at FAC and I chose "previously" instead. Maybe the answer is "earlier" (just like it was, Gerda, for our DYK this week!!)? This is how it might look adopting Dank's suggestion with a couple of suggestions:

It features the largest array of instruments of any Mozart concerto: strings, woodwinds including oboes and clarinets, horns, trumpets and timpani. The concerto consists of three movements. The first, Allegro, is in sonata form and is longer than any opening movement fromof Mozart's previousearlier concertos.

I'm ok with the "Mozart ... concerto" repetition: they are two sentences removed. Ideally we could find a way to junk the word "any" ("every" instead?) but let's live with it for now. Whatever we end up with, I will amend the article itself to align with the blurb. Syek88 (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I made it so. (The invite was coming this morning, Syek, I had to get to bed.) Thanks much; sounds like everyone's on board. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I've changed the article too. There's now just a typo—double full-stop—at the end of the sentence in the blurb. I'd change it myself but am not an administrator. Syek88 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It should read "It features the largest array of instruments of any Mozart concerto: strings, woodwind (including oboes and clarinets), horns, trumpets and timpani." otherwise you're including horns, trumpets and timpani in the woodwind section - and woodwind is a section so it's already plural. Richerman (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The current placement of commas makes it clear that the term "woodwinds" does not include the horns, trumpets or timpani; "woodwinds including oboes and clarinets" is the composite term and discrete list item. To construct the sentence in the way you read it, you need to add an "and" before "woodwinds" then replace the other "and" with a comma. The parentheses you propose would of course be grammatically correct too, but parentheses are ugly especially if not strictly necessary. Woodwinds plural is also correct: it is referring not to a singular section of the orchestra but to a collection of four types of instruments, as here among many examples. Syek88 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently Featured missing

The "Recently featured" line is missing in April 6 and 7, but only when logged out, and only when viewed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2017, not at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 6, 2017 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 7, 2017. I couldn't find an explanation, so I don't know if the same problem will occur for logged-out users on the Main Page for those two days. Art LaPella (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you purged the page? It looks correct to me from all three pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not if it's different from "Reload current page". It now looks correct to me also, although I didn't do anything. So never mind. Art LaPella (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fez on the 13th

Any chance Fez (video game) could run on the 13th? It's the five-year anniversary and I had it on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. I now know about the date connection page so I'll be using that more often. czar 00:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put this in, because I think I really should have been looking at the pending list. In future I'd suggest anyone interested in getting an article to run nominate it at TFAR regardless of whether it's on the pending list -- more people will see it and comment, and I would choose an article nominated at TFAR over one that is only at the pending list if there is a date conflict. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Would it make more sense to use the video instead of the box art to identify the game? Both are featured pictures, but the gameplay video has the benefit of explaining much more than the box art (though, of course, the box art is better for strictly identification). czar 00:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me -- go ahead and make the change on the TFA page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. I waver between both myself, so I lean towards the video but am open if there's a good rationale for using the cover art  czar 01:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

King Kalākaua's world tour

Mike Christie you have decided not to schedule Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/King Kalākaua's world tour as a TFA on the date requested, which would be April 16. Perhaps you can suggest a day when it would be allowable for it to be on TFA. Your reasoning being that we had a Hawaiian article in February. It's unfortunate, because the week of April 16 would be the peak period of interest from the public, since it's the beginning of a week-long festival honoring Kalakaua. But perhaps you could suggest the next time period it wouldn't be too repetitive for TFA. And before you ask, there is no other date in the entire year related to Kalakaua that's as big of a deal as this. The rest of it will be just like picking some lame excuse to justify running this on a particular date. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If mid-April would be the best time, how about nominating it next year? If there's a reason it would be good to have it as a TFA before then, I think three months would be enough of a gap; just go ahead and nominate it at TFAR in the usual way -- though it sounds like that's not the case. You can create a new nomination; I know that sometimes renominations have been done by editing the original template but I suspect that will be trickier to get right so I wouldn't suggest that unless someone can tell you to do it cleanly.

I'm sorry for disappointing the nominator and supporters; I didn't do it lightly. It's not just that it would be repetitive, though that is part of it. One of the reasons I and the other TFA coordinators try to keep similar articles away from each other in the calendar as that we want to keep having a variety of articles in the future; using up an unusual class quickly makes it less available for the future. I want to have Hawaiian history articles available so I'm not left with just bird, coin, military, ship, and road articles (all fine articles, and all very suitable for the front page, but we don't want too many in a given month). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe this one just won't be TFA at all. It made it to FA, so that's good. But I think I'm not putting myself or the article through this again. — Maile (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It might make sense to make TFAR less of a big deal, so people don't invest too much energy, or have to wait too long, or expect things that don't match up with the constraints (and the consensus) we face at TFA. One function of TFA, obviously, is to make people happy, not frustrated. Is there something we can do that we're not doing? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Maile, do you mean that the TFAR also was stressful? I hope not; so far (just a couple of months into the job) I've essentially been accepting every nomination that I don't have a specific reason to turn down, and I plan to keep doing it that way. If you nominate it again next year, the only reason I could see it not becoming TFA is if someone suggests a better article for that day. As an article gets older it doesn't have a lesser chance of making it to the front page -- I try to mix up the month so that it includes older FAs that have never been TFA as well as some more recent ones. In April so far we have two articles from 2009 scheduled, and I'm looking at a couple of older ones as possibles for later in the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, @Dank and Mike Christie:, and please understand my posting here is not one of those "if I can't have my way, the heck with you" situations, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed. It was a bit of a surprise, in the fact that I actually expected it to be knocked out by an Easter-related hook, since April 16 is that occurrence this year. The stress was mine. It's more of a case that I had this in mind when I started creating the article several months ago. It didn't work out that way, and that's the way the mop flops. Overall, TFA does a good job. I'm actually happy that the other Hawaiian article ran as TFA, and I wouldn't change that for anything. I'm just not sure I want to put out that kind of effort and hope again, just to be disappointed. But, then again, that's just the way it goes. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Eliminating Supports and Opposes

@Dank and Mike Christie: thinking about this, the most logical thing to do is eliminate the Support/Oppose element of current requests. It obviously rests on the decision of one individual, so the ivote aspect is misleading. It builds false hopes that consensus is in play. I think it would be better to straight-out say that on the requests page. Something like "list your requests here, and the coordinator will decide the scheduling." — Maile (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's sufficiently clear that the decision rests with the coordinators. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

— Maile , the "oppose" !vote is useful because it flags up possible problems. I closed two opposed TFAR requests in February after discussion with the noms because they weren't in a fit state to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Make happy, use pending list

I suggest to use the pending list (WP:TFARP) more, to avoid similar articles in too close succession by looking ahead what's planned to be shown. I saw the Tour pending and therefore made no attempt for an Easter topic. - I vote for showing the time-related Tour now on 16 April, even if a little closer to the last similar one than the guideline wants. IAR, or make it a rule that time-relation is more important. - I also suggest to make it possible to add planned FAs to the pending list, perhaps in a different colour, to see conflicts of interests early. - When scheduling, look for ideas at pending also, not only TFAR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Gerda Arendt, this was on the pending list the very day it achieved FA. However, the other Hawaiian article was already scheduled by then. In this case, it didn't matter to me. I could have put it on the pending list earlier, if the FAC process wasn't as slow as it is. But having the other Hawaiian article out there was irrelevant to me, as I wrote the article specifically for the Merrie Monarch week-long celebration. That festival had a set date. Where it became so disappointing is that I thought the supports meant something to its being promoted. Apparently, that part of the process is just for show.— Maile (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, the nominator of the other Hawaiian article would not have hesitated to nominate that one if King Kalakaua's World Tour was already on the list. The pending list perhaps works more for the coordinators, but it's really just a meaningless list for the nominators. If a person wants to nominate their article, then they're going to nominate their article regardless of how many other similar articles are lined up. And as Mike Christie has personally experienced, self-interest of nominators makes it all irrelevant. Even after scheduling is fixed, the coordinator gets talk page requests to toss out somebody else's FA on the schedule and stick theirs in instead.— Maile (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, I meant that those who schedule should look at the pending list more. I didn't see, though, that the other Hawaiian article had already been scheduled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick note: yes, I have not been looking at the pending list as closely as I might -- I've been assuming that the ones with interest have been moved to TFAR, but I'll make sure to go through it more thoroughly from now on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA scheduling decisions

Starting a separate section as I'd like to respond to a couple of points from the two sections above. I should start by saying that I'm relatively new at TFA scheduling, and have no problems admitting a mistake; perhaps this was one. I'd like to explain how I make the decisions; if there's something wrong with the way I'm going about it, we can discuss it.

I think of the job as implementing consensus, and the opinions I have to evaluate included the !votes at TFAR, but they also include the voices of those who established the rules for TFA years ago. A request at TFAR, even well-supported, for running two battleship articles one after the other would clearly go against the TFA coordinators' job description; it would require extraordinary support. Here the conflict was relatively minor, and the TFAR had good support, but since it was an annual anniversary and next year would be just as good I thought it would be harmless to defer it a year. I hadn't realized that the nominators were specifically keen to get it in this year.

Another way to look at the TFA coordinators' job is that I feel I should schedule everything that has been requested unless there is some reason not to; there's no reason for me to arbitrarily say no to a nomination.

To a couple of specific points above: I removed an article from the queue at a nominator's request because they had a specific nomination in mind for later. I don't want to imply that the principle writer of an article owns the article, but something like that seems simply courteous, though I would rather it didn't set a precedent, because rescheduling does cause a little extra work.

On the question of whether the votes at TFAR count; they do. In some cases of course people oppose, which makes a difference, but even with no opposes I would look at the supports and take that into account. As I said above, I didn't realize that deferring a year would cause such hard feelings.

I'm off to work shortly and probably can't reply much till this evening, so if there are follow up questions please allow for a delay in my replies. As I said earlier, I'd be happy to change the way I do this if we're in agreement that improvement is needed. I won't be able to actually do the rescheduling till tonight, but I plan to move Sino-Roman relations out to the 18th, to make room for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie I guess communication is a two-way street, and it never occurred to me to tell you background on this. I don't have much experience at TFA myself. But, anyway, this is why it's so important to run this in 2017. We have generally been working for a while to raise up the coverage of Hawaii's monarchy and subsequent supporting articles, and KAVEBEAR over the long haul has done a ton of a lot more of that than I have. But when Kalakaua's World Tour ran as DYK while it was sitting in FAC, and it possibly leading readers to looking more into his life and reign, it seemed like a good idea to clean up Kalākaua. That particular article was sub-standard and tagged hither and yon within. One thing led to another, and we ended up not only doing a complete overhaul of the Kalākaua article, but also creating several supporting articles about his monarchy and related persons. So, we're more or less ready on this end if people at the Merrie Monarch festival get motivated to read more about him. But it just never occurred to me to mention that as part of the TFA nomination. Maybe it would have helped? — Maile (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's rescheduled. I think the recentlists are fixed; Dank, can you take care of any protection fixes needed? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

King Kalākaua's world tour on 16 April?

• Support. (I just had an FA that didn't make it in time for the best date, so understand that IAR would be a way out of frustration.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  OK; I'll go ahead and run it; I think IAR is fair enough here. I'll respond above as I think some clarification would help there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Resignation

• I, Chris Woodrich, hereby announce my resignation as TFA coordinator effective immediately owing to increased RL demands. Until a coordinator has been selected to replace me, scheduling will be handled by Dank, Mike Christie, and Jimfbleak. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to see Chris leave the role; as a new TFA coordinator since January it was nice to know his experience was there and would likely prevent me from making too many stupid mistakes. Chris, thanks for all the work you've done at TFA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'll miss your kind and thoughtful presence, Chris. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Joining the choir of those missing your selections, - take care and keep watching, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry to see you depart, Chris. I found you a pleasure to work with during my recent TFA coordinator stint, with fair and sound judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Echo all of the above, Chris -- we've been blessed with a great team of TFA coords over the past couple of years carrying on the high standard that Bench maintained. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Sad to see this but know how RL works...take care...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  Same here. Take care of yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Query regarding copyvio

"One function of TFA, obviously, is to make people happy, not frustrated." Please explain how that is being achieved? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC) @WP:TFA coordinators I asked a polite question concerning the general statement made above; I realise we all act in a voluntary capacity and allocate our limited time accordingly but I would very much appreciate a response. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think people who've worked extensively on articles would nominate them for TFA as often as they do if they weren't happy when they were scheduled. There are some who dislike seeing articles they've worked on at TFA, and others (myself among them) who don't feel strongly either way, but clearly a great many editors really enjoy seeing their work on the main page. You'd have to ask those who nominate their own articles why they enjoy it; I could make guesses but I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for having the courtesy to reply, Mike, I do appreciate it. That wasn't the geist of my question though. The statement made above indicates that TFA does not intend to make people unhappy or deliberately set out to cause distress yet scheduling articles against the wishes of the main contributors, especially if they have been nominated at TFAR as a drive-by from someone who has had no involvement at all, is disrespectful; I note articles are also added to the "pending" section by drive-by editors too, Guy Fawkes Night for instance. I do appreciate that TFA co-ordinators have to do their best but if they are aware that the main contributor(s) to an article really, really do not wish to be involved - to the extent that TFA is driving editors away from FAC where you are, from what I can see, desperately trying to encourage more participation, why persevere in the attitude "We are the TFA co-ordinators and will do as we please"? To be honest I am also horrified that TFA/TFAR appears to regularly flout the licensing requirements/terms of use; there is a long standing technical copyright violation that has remained in place for almost two years. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean about a copyvio -- can you clarify? To your other point: I don't think that being a TFA coordinator gives me the right to change the long-standing way the job is done. When I'm looking at filling a slot for which no TFAR nomination exists, and I'm trying to decide between, say, an article you wrote and an article written by someone who I know really likes to be on the main page, I have no problem picking the other article. I think a lot of editors would feel that going beyond that would infringe OWN, and I think we would have to get community consensus that main editors, or FAC nominators, have right of veto at TFA. I don't think such a suggestion would gain consensus, so I feel obliged to do the job as I think the community (as a whole) wants it done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

When articles are nominated at TFAR or selected by co-ordinators the lead is simply copy pasted; the requirement and courtesy of attribution is not being given. I will note that Chris was always respectful of the work of others and ensured this was done when he scheduled TFAs. A drive-by TFAR was made twice for the same article with the nominator, who had no involvement with the article whatsoever, offering no acknowledgement (attribution) that the work of others was being copy/pasted - totally disrespectful in my opinion, even more so that has been allowed to remain in place for so long. It should also be noted that copy pasting into a sandbox also requires attribution. I appreciate that you may try to give preference to scheduling TFAs of those who enjoy the experience, unfortunately others appear to delight in the antagonism of doing otherwise. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am not sure I understand. Do you think copying a lead section to a TFA blurb, or to a sandbox to work on such a blurb, needs an attribution? So far I thought that it is clear without saying that those who brought the article to FA status and wrote the lead (who can easily be looked up in the article history) are the authors. What do others think? If attribution seems needed, how and where? Should it be done for older articles? Sorry if I misunderstood anything here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not that I think it, policy requires it; if further explanation is required try also reading this guideline. Technically, it is a copyright infringement (as well as showing blatant disrespect to the work of others). SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think these guidelines are designed for copying from one article to another, not copying to the blurb of that same article where the authorship is clear. Again: what do other's think? If attribution seems needed, where would it be placed in a TFA nom, for example? - I am sorry for making you think of disrespect, it was not intended, and I apologize for the feelings I caused, resulting from a different interpretation. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the copying (even with slight alterations) of the work of others to anywhere else within WP requires attribution. As I stated above, Chris always had the courtesy of acknowledging and correctly attributing the work of others when scheduling. The guidelines/policy linked clearly explain the requirements and how to do it. An individual editors interpretation of it does not apply, respecting the contributions of others and having the courtesy to do so, however, does. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, FWIW, mentioning at a TFA blurb (via edit summary or talk page notice) that the blurb was derived from the article was something I never did when scheduling TFAs from November 2012 to December 2014; nor as far as I am aware, from extensive perusals of archives over the years, was it something that my predecessors Raul and Dabomb did. I don't recall it being raised as an issue with me while I was a co-ordinator, and I don't recall it seeing it being raised as an issue with them. I'm not saying that we were right or wrong in not doing this, or that the community was right or wrong in not challenging this - perhaps everyone just regarded it as self-evident that the blurb was derived from the article to which it's linked - but this is part of the background. Bencherlite^Talk 12:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bencherlite, for the background. Perhaps we should ask someone who is very knowledgeable in this type of thing? Perhaps Diannaa? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall the point ever being raised at TFA but I know it was discussed regarding the "Featured Content" segment of The Signpost. Consensus there was that attribution has to be provided for blurbs derived from the related articles. Our license does require it, so if the blurb is a shortened version of the lead or is heavily based on the article (which prolly virtually all of them are), attribution is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, - I missed that. The current Signpost has a general: "This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 5 to 18 February. Text may be adapted from the respective articles and lists; see their page histories for attribution." - Can we think of saying something similarly general, instead of attributing every single article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a page for discussing policy; I'll ask over there. The language of WP:C seems clear to me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sectioning this off into its own. I would like to make something clear in this wall of text. Sagaciousphil is not associated with the Kalakaua article in anyway whatsoever. This is a general issue not specific to the Kalakaua TFA, or to me. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed my name from the heading. I have never claimed I was associated with the Kalakaua article in any way; the comment I was querying appeared to be a general statement concerning TFA and was not specific to that article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I know. But because of where you originally posted this, it played out in the middle of the Kalakaua thread and looked like it was about that article. This needed its own, more noticeable, section. — Maile (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not impressed with the conversation at WP:VPP; people can't be bothered to click on the "history" tab and notice that people quote text from other pages all the time and almost never put a link in the edit summary when they do. It may be we're talking past each other and I just haven't figured that out yet, but when people behave badly on Wikipedia, it's generally a good idea just to make reasonable attempts to comply, and try to avoid the subject. Suggestions:

• Note that WP:Copying within Wikipedia says that you don't need attribution on "Material that will be reverted and deleted in full", so copying something to a sandbox is fine as long as you get your sandbox deleted from time to time.
• Note that I just violated the policy by quoting from WP:Copying within Wikipedia without noting that in my edit summary. I intend to keep on violating it; everyone does, including the people who say they don't, and the link in the text is much more helpful than a link in the edit summary would be.
  • Inserted: I'm told that there's an argument that I didn't violate the guideline or policy, because the snippet I quoted is too short to qualify (under some theory of law) for copyright protection. There are some problems with this argument, but I have to bow to people who work with copyvio and know the rules better than I do (and it doesn't take much to know them better than I do). - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I personally have no objection to saying "attribution at (linked article)" in the edit summary when I schedule TFAs; I'll follow Mike's and Jim's lead on that. But Gerda makes an excellent point about the disclaimer at the top of the Signpost page, and it may be that similar disclaimers on pages such as WP:TFAA and WP:TFAR are the way to go. Of course, that doesn't cover the roughly 23 million people per day who might see the TFA text when they view the Main Page ... but that's not a problem for us to solve here, because the same thing is true for text all up and down the Main Page. If someone wants an attribution disclaimer added to the Main Page, WT:Main Page is the place to bring that up. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I see no problem for the Main page, where readers are invited to see the "(Full article...)", - for my simple view that says that the blurb is part of that article. I think we could keep things simple by saying that templates related to an article (DYK nom, GA nom, FA candidacy, TFA nom, to name a few) are part of that article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another option is a <noinclude> tag on the individual TFAs, probably at the end, letting people know to check the article history for attribution. The tag would be necessary so that that text doesn't appear when the TFA is transcluded to the Main Page. (If people want that, again, that would have to come from a discussion at WT:Main Page.) This option would probably be easier than adding the attribution info every time a TFA is created, and it would have the benefit that the text could be added to one of the standard templates that already appear at the bottom of TFAs, thus adding the text retroactively to previous TFAs, fixing the problem that we didn't know was a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Striking this last suggestion ... the best I can tell, people who care about these things really want to see something in the page history rather than on the page. Personally, when creating a TFA page, I'll probably add "see the history of the linked article for attribution"; it seems like overkill to give the actual link in the edit summary, when the two links to the article are so blatantly obvious on the TFA page itself. I really don't see how someone could not understand what article we're talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dank Question - when a TFA page is created, is it from a template, or does everybody just write one up from blank space? If a template, seems it might be a little time saver for the template to pull up with "see the history of the linked article for attribution" in smaller letters somewhere at the bottom (or top). — Maile (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We can do it either way; there's a template that preloads part of the page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Chris included "attribution at" and a link in his edit summaries; Jim and I are also habitually including edit summaries, so I don't think anything has changed for the worse. I'll at least keep including the link, and will start saying "attribution at" in the edit summary too. If the discussion at VPP says we should include oldid I can do that too although so far it's not clear that's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see support for oldid at WP:C or WP:COPYWITHIN. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

COPYWITHIN: "This page in a nutshell: When copying content from one article to another." The question is still open if a TFA nom (which even lists the editors) or a TFA blurb is really another article. I don't see it like that. They are templates clearly referring to the linked article in question, the TFA nom even has it in its title. Where would there be any doubt where the text comes from? - This is different from copying something from a composer's article to a new one about a composition, or from one nature park to a similar other one, imho, where an attribution makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that it's different. Mike generally gives a link to the article in the history, and I'll say something like "See article history for attribution". If Jim does either, we should be good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced by the rationale, but since one of my first TFA postings was nominated for speedy deletion by SagaciousPhil, I accept that others see this as an issue, and I'm happy to fall in line and attribute as suggested. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about scheduling TFA without the consent of the primary author(s)

• Sagaciousphil raised the point above that some editors don't nominate for FAC in case the articles are made TFA without their consent. That's one of the reasons I don't nominate nowadays. I have several that are close to FA, but I don't want them as TFA. TFA coordinators in the past have mostly agreed that they won't schedule without consent. Mike, Dank and Jim, can you offer an assurance that you won't make an article TFA if the main writer objects? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV you and Sagaciousphil have made me curious. Why would an editor go through all the work on getting an article to FA, and not want it TFA? What are the drawbacks to it? — Maile (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, for myself, of course I can give that assurance. The only case that arose in the only month I've scheduled was in fact a Sagaciousphil article that I pulled as soon as that user made it clear there was a problem. SarahSV, since I'm new to this, I wasn't aware of your views, but now I know, I won't schedule without your consent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim, many thanks. I appreciate that. Seeing the discussion about previous TFAs being re-used was a bit nerve-wracking, because it raised the possibility of articles being scheduled again against my wishes, and having to order inter-library loans again, etc, to be completely sure everything's in order in older FAs. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah, for your respectful comments; I usually worked on articles because, well, I enjoyed it and having them recognised as FA quality was something to aim for and an achievement. I have the greatest respect for the FAC co-ordinators and had fairly recently actually began to derive pleasure from trying to make some modest attempts at reviewing other nominations. There are some reasons I am unable to share publicly as to why I am so set against TFA but if you or perhaps Bencherlite would like me to email you I am more than happy to do so. Jim: yes, thank you for very promptly pulling it; it was, however, re-created some 7 weeks later with only very minor, superficial, tweaks made to a few words without even extending the courtesy of approaching me to query why I might be objecting. For some of those involved to be making inappropriate comments here (and elsewhere) is surely not acceptable? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This crosses a line; I'll reply on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Striking ... now that I understand the issues, I don't think it crosses a line. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As I'm not involved in scheduling decisions anymore, I don't think that emailing me will be worthwhile. Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, like Jim I have no personal objection to primary authors having a preference not to schedule, but for the reasons Bencherlite gives below I'm concerned about making it a definite right. I can say I have no plans to pick an article by you or SagaciousPhil for TFA, but I'd like to see how the discussion in this section plays out -- if someone else should nominate at TFA an article one of the two of you has worked on, should I refuse to run it? I don't think this is particularly likely to happen, but it would be a test case for this discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike, yes, in that scenario please refuse to run it.

Not giving authors the right to say no means articles are less likely to be nominated for FAC by authors who are unable to drop everything and prep their articles for the main page when someone else tells them to. That means we're discriminating against editors who are too busy at work or college, who have health issues, who have young children to look after, etc. If the only way to avoid an unwanted TFA is not to write FAs, we're losing FAs that the authors might have agreed one day to have on the main page.

Do we have any stats on what percentage of TFA nominations are from the main author(s)? I'd be curious to know how many FA writers actually want their work to be TFA. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah, when the TFA coordinators schedule an article we don't have time to read it in detail. I scan through an article I'm considering running, and look for {{citation needed}} tags, blocks of unreferenced text, and other obvious markers of an article that's fallen into disrepair, and I read at least some of the article. If someone points out to me that the article isn't ready for the main page because it hasn't been kept up to date since it became an FA, or for any reason that makes it clear it would fail the FA criteria, I wouldn't run it -- not because someone objects, but because the article is no longer FA quality. It doesn't matter whether it's the article, or the standards, or events since the article's promotion that mean it fails the criteria; it shouldn't run.

If you were to tell me that you were too busy to work on the article, I wouldn't want to run it, because that would tell me it was not FA quality, otherwise it wouldn't need any prepping. I think that's an uncontroversial reason not to run an article. The main other two reasons I've seen discussed here are because it's a controversial topic, and because the main author simply does not wish it. I can understand the first of these; I'd like to hear more discussion, and perhaps some examples, and see what the opinion of other editors is on the point, but it seems reasonable. What about the second point? The article is still FA quality and needs no updating, and is not controversial. The main author says "please don't run this". Do they get a veto? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've always found discussions like this interesting because to me the entire concept (at least, semantically) of "featured" content is that's cast into the spotlight and paid more attention by its merits. It's eligible to be featured on the main page—that's why it's "featured". I never imagined what I'd be in for when Raul put my first FA on the main page without my consent. I stupidly wrote an article (an article that today reads poorly to me and I wish I could de-feature without any fuss or fanfare) about a music store and was called a paid shill on TFA day by dozens of editors. To this day, despite my thousands of hours of volunteer work on this site that have nothing to do with the music business, people on external forums openly discuss how I must be here on behalf of the music industry. I understand why people don't want their work on the main page, but I'm still confused by it. --Laser brain (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Maile66 and Laser brain, there are several reasons depending on the article. It's nice to get an article to the highest WP level, but the additional step of TFA is usually of no benefit to the writer or the topic. The only FA of mine that I wanted to be TFA was FGM to coincide with the UN's Zero Tolerance Day, because I felt that would be of benefit to people. But otherwise it's a lot of trouble for no gain.

Sometimes the topic is the problem. I have one FA that is too contentious for the main page, and two articles that I've considered bringing up to FA, but they're criticial of a religion, and I wouldn't want to hurt the religion's followers. Because of the risk that they might be TFA over my objections, I've decided not to nominate them. In other cases, it's that the FA was promoted a long time ago, so a TFA would involve a lot of checking and updating. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You're making some good points. We've had similar discussions recently, and we're talking it over again. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We talked elsewhere recently about A class. It would make sense to call FA "A class" instead. A-class articles would be eligible for TFA, with the main writer(s) permission, but the "featured'" aspect wouldn't be built into the category and viewed as the only reason for the promotion. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Putting this into its own section for increased visibility and wider discussion. Historically TFA coordinators have always been wary about explicitly giving FA authors a right of veto in relation to TFA appearances, because once one FA author has been granted immunity it becomes harder and harder to refuse it to others, further diminishing the pool of available articles - particularly if, for example, all of the articles in a particular topic area have been written by the same primary author. I remember a conversation about this issue with Eric Corbett and Ealdgyth when I was coordinator, for example, and they may have a view. Bencherlite^Talk 07:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I met the question of a primary author disagreeing with the article being TFA first on Amazing Grace, and thought that the article deserved - for quality and subject - to be shown, which it was. I still nominate articles which I think deserve a wider audience it but have become more cautious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the point of nominating for featured article would be in the first place if you don't want it featured/highlighted? It kinda goes in the name. If one wants to improve articles to a near FA-quality level without having it on the main page, GA and peer review would surely be enough? No one is forced to nominate for FAC. This also goes into WP:ownership issues ("Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"). Since these are CC-licenced texts, it should be clear to anyone writing here that they are not in complete control of what happens to the articles henceforward. It is a fundamental mechanism of Wikipedia. I'd go so far as to say that the possibility of an article becoming TFA should even be a requirement for it being an FA, especially now that there is apparently a shortage of articles to feature... FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  There is the matter of the article needing to be updated, especially if it ran a long while ago. I normally have to check the external links. I also usually edit the proposed summary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  FunkMonk: Not to invalidate your point re: WP:OWN, but you then have the situation where FA-quality articles are held hostage withheld from FA by primary authors who refuse to nominate. A problem that could be ignored in the name of WP ideals if there weren't an FA deficit ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To me, the result would be the same; a featured article that can't be featured is kind of an oxymoron, so if the article goes successfully through GA and peer review instead, that's just as beneficial for the project. We get a well-written, well-sourced article that can't be featured on the main-page. The only difference is a star-icon. Because again, what would the point of nominating them for FAC be if they are not to be featured anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles that editors had the skills and (otherwise) motivation to polish off to FA standard being left at "Good Enough" is hardly the same. You appear hung up on the word "Featured"—other language Wikipedias use different terms. At fr.wp it's "Articles de qualité"; de.wp "Exzellente Artikel"; ja.wp "秀逸な記事" (Shūitsu-na kiji, "Excellent articles") ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a damned if we do and damned if we don't scenario then. Also, should we then be barred from linking to these articles if they become relevant in the news? Or "on this day" and similar? Seems like a slippery slope. All articles linked to from the main-page will get spikes in their vandalism and view counts, if that's the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

People don't seem to be complaining about that. Any idea why? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

From the few arguments added against TFA here so far, it partly appears to be the main-page presence itself that's the problem ("too contentious for the main page"), so other kinds of "featuring" would be implicit in this, no? I'm not saying there aren't other reasons (I'm very curious as to what they could be, in fact), but none have been mentioned, other than the possibility that an article may not be ready enough. But in that case, there are other mechanisms to keep them from the main-page. I just don't think a blanket "don't ever feature articles by this user, unless they explicitly give permission" is the way to go. WP:own would be clear on this, as would the very text that appears every time someone edits an article: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Articles are read, whether they are featured on the main page or not. For example, the FGM article got about 50K readers when it was featured on 6 Feb 2015 but there have been other spikes of a similar size since then and its total readership is over 3 million now. Below is its graph for the last couple of years. From this you can see that the bulk of the readership is the steady, daily traffic of about 5K. The spikes presumably arise when the topic is in the news or featured elsewhere. For example, note that the mobile app routinely features random articles, giving them as much prominence as TFA. For example, when I look at the app right now, it shows me Tipplers Tales and Rath City, Texas. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that answers some unexplained spikes in articles I keep an eye on... in terms of TFA without the main editor's consent - there is usually some cleanup work that needs to be done after the article has appeared on the main page, with ill-informed or badly formatted edits needing to be tidied - this can be somewhat cumbersome, since you can't assume all edits were bad edits and simply revert to the pre-TFA version. If there was a heavy run of edits, this can take quite some time to sort through, and the main editor may not be available, or willing, to do it... Simon Burchell (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have some sympathy with the "explicit ban" idea. Apart from the need to check changes since the article passed FAC, and see if sources need updating, and sometimes add developments in the subject itself, I've noticed many nominators are very concerned by watching or defending the article on the day itself. I think this last is less of a problem than it was in the past, but it clearly worries some. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Its no secret I find TFA to be tedious. Generally, I find little useful improvements come from random editors, and occasionally I end up dealing with people who have no clue about the subject matter but think because they read something somewhere once that they know everything there is to know about the subject. Or you get the people pushing their own personal POVs or that have some bee in their bonnet about wrong that needs righting. That doesn't mean I support the idea that we should allow primary editors to veto ALL TFA appearances by articles they've worked on. I do, however, have a few articles I'm hesitating about bringing to FAC because I don't want to deal with the crap that would come from them being TFA, so I totally symphatize with @SarahSV: about that. Perhaps we should have the ability for nominators to specify in their nominations that they don't consider the article suitable for TFA, and that aspect could be considered along with the nomination - if a majority of the reviewers agree with the nominator, the article would be considered not suitable for TFA. This would allow for a check on a blanket veto by nominators while still allowing some descretion. IT would also save the TFA coordinators from having to make decisions on what's suitable only on their own heads. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• We (TFA coords) are making progress on our end as well ... after everyone's had a chance to participate here, we think this would probably be a good time to adopt some new language dealing with this issue. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I haven't the time to go through this conversation in detail, but I just want to second the views of some above: there are many legitimate reasons to want to take an article to FAC without wanting to see it on the MP. If the primary author (insofar as such a concept makes sense) would prefer not to see an article on the main page, that should surely, typically, be respected. I'm not sure there's anything too wrong with imploring authors to change their mind, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Again, I haven't read through everything above - in fact, I've barely read through anything above, but my personal position is more or less along the lines of WP:OWN. We don't own any articles here; there are plenty of people who monitor MP articles for vandalism, and the nature of a collaborative project like this means that sometimes people will come across and article and make changes or challenges to it; TFA is simply an exaggeration of that. It should have nothing to do with "the primary author(s)" whether a FA is included as TFA, or not. Harrias ^talk 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Ealdgyth has expressed my view rather more articulately than I planned to. Like her, I'd be less keen on a blanket exemption for editors, but as it seems to be specific articles that people don't want on the main page, I have no problem with that. And I'd rather have more, and varied, FAs even if they are unlikely to be TFA, for variety is always good in any circumstances. It would be nice to see some of the above editors back at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I can certainly understand an editor not wanting to deal with a TFA for an article that they are monitoring. But I do think this should be handled based on explicit objections at the time of the TFA request, rather than requiring an author's pre-approval or baking it into the original FA nomination. For example, a main author may have objections to a TFA now (due to real-life distractions, for example), but OK with it at some other time. Or the main author may have moved on to other topic areas or retired from WP, and doesn't give a fig if their old article goes to TFA. --RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I had a situation a few years ago where I was very ill, and during that period someone scheduled one of my FAs for TFA. It meant I had to start emailing the coordinator while I was otherwise too sick to do so, then to make things worse I got no response, and had to email Raul directly, who thankfully responded quickly and pulled it. But for 24 hours I was miserably thinking I'd have to start prepping the article despite being ill. It felt as though Wikipedia had reached through my screen and taken me hostage.

The only way to avoid these situations is to require that the main author(s) agree to the TFA nomination in the first place, just as we ask that the regular editors be consulted before an FAC nomination. See WP:FAC: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I do not think that nominators should be given the explicit power to prevent a FA being TFA. I do agree with Ealdgyth's comment above that if good reasons are given not to feature an article as TFA then the community will generally accept this and not run it, but it should still be the community's decision. I do however think that maybe TFAs that weren't nominated by the primary author (or without their permission) should be scheduled well in advance so they can express any concerns they have. -- Shudde ^talk 06:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a veto power for primary authors for the WP:OWN reason outlined above. However, I think a requirement to consult with the primary authors well before the scheduled date should be built in so they can express any reservations they have about it going to TFA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67, if that's intended to apply to TFA coordinators as well as drive-by noms, it's a non-starter. It puts the onus on the coordinator instead of the nom, creates extra work and makes a tight scheduling timetable even tighter. I for one would not be happy to signing up for that. Most FA nominators are happy to have a TFA, and the onus should be on those who aren't to make their feelings known to the coordinators, preferably as a group so nothing is overlooked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, just drive-by noms. I should have made that clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Three cases

I posted a question specifically to Sarah above, but I'd like to hear more opinions. It seems that there are three types of reasons being discussed for not running a TFA.

1. The article is no longer FA standard, because new information needs to be added, or standards have risen, or post-FAC edits have reduced the article's quality; and the nominator doesn't have the time or inclination to bring it back to standard.
2. The article is controversial in some way.
3. Neither of the above applies but the nominator does not want it to run.

Any opinions on which of these is valid and which is not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

1 is obviously a valid reason to not run an article as TFA. 2 is a bit more difficult - I'd prefer to see that discussed at the nomination before any article reaches FA, but if such a discussion hasn't happened, it should probably be discussed somewhere. 3, while I sympathize, goes against WP:OWN and unfortunately that's an issue that we can't override. I can see limited exceptions - say you scheduled one of the articles I've worked on as TFA and I'm going to be out of town with limited internet so I ask for it to run on a different day or maybe I thought it'd be better on a later date as an anniversary. Those sorts of exceptions are certainly allowable. But just plain "I don't want it to ever run because I find TFA tedious" ... well, we can't do that because of WP:OWN. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems sensible. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All seem valid objections, but all can be discussed when nominated. Drive-by nominator speaking. In most cases, there were no objections to my nominations. When they came, they have been discussed openly, - I don't see what's wrong with it. I won't nominate when I feel an objection coming, - learning, sometimes slowly. Can we install a way to show in the FA list that an article is not eligible for TFA, as we show that it appeared? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is.. most of us don't have the TFA nominations page watched. I don't need another page on my watchlist if I can avoid it. I would suggest that if you are not the nominator at FAC, that you discuss with that editor before doing a drive-by nomination for TFA. They likely won't have the TFA nomination page watchlisted so they probably won't know if it gets nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the things I learned was to not only ping the main contributors in the nomination, but also mention the nomination on the article talk and all main contributors' talk. I nominated only a few this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ps: the few were Kalki Koechlin, Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, Sabrina Sidney, Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart), The Heart of a Woman (2nd time), Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce), - all appeared or scheduled, no objections. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No. 1 should be a given standard, if it's no longer FA quality it shouldn't run. No. 2 is dependent on individual perspective and should have community discussion on a case-by-case basis. No. 3, same thing. If the nominator to FAC does not want it run, there should be a way to flag it at the FAC level. Once flagged, it should be discussed here if someone disagrees with the nominator and thinks it should be run. If they don't think the subject matter should be on the main page, I can sympathize with that. I can also sympathize with anyone who doesn't want the article exposed to any drive-by "expert" who never edited before hacking the article to pieces. Been there. Recently. Repeatedly. And a drive-by lodging personal attacks against the FAC nominator. Yep. That, also - been there recently and repeatedly. But the exposure to drive-by editing is just the way it goes at Wikipedia. Unless...of course...FA would implement my personal dream of at least granting any new FA permanent semi-protection. But the FAC nominator should be given the respect of discussing their perspective on each TFL case. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As was mentioned elsewhere, FAC states that "nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." That rule should be applied to TFA as well, because just as significant contributors may be aware of issues with the article that a drive-by would not know, those editors may also know of reasons why a TFA appearance isn't currently warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 14:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the notification should be before the nomination, not a ping to an active nomination already opened. Imzadi 1979 → 15:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be a nice courtesy if the FAC nominator was pinged before it was ever nominated for TFL. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's one point of view. I look from a different angle: When I ask, and get no, the decision is on me to oblige or not. I prefer it to rest with the community. But see above: I asked sometimes, and got no "no" this year, getting better in realizing what might hurt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Each point could be discussed for the individual TFA (1 is already a given), but as was mentioned elsewhere, I think the onus should be on the FAC nominator to bring up if they don't want the articles featured on the main-page, since not wanting article's for TFA doesn't seem to be a general problem (only three have expressed they don't want it?). There should not be a blanket "this editor doesn't want any of their nominations featured" option, per WP:own. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I will admit I'm sitting on an article that is ready for FAC (or mostly) because I'm not sure I want to deal with the POV pushing if it became TFA. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In my own experience, very little, if anything, that is added by random editors/IPs during a TFA sticks. There may be typo fixes here and there, but that's mostly it. The content usually stays the way it was, because most additions during this time are malformed and just reverted by the many watchers that are added once it goes live. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• One case that hasn't been mentioned is if the nominator wants it to run on a different date, because of an anniversary of some sort. --Rschen7754 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, apparently I didn't read the discussion fully, but as far as #3, I would take it on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket accept or reject of all the possibilities. --Rschen7754 03:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:TFAempty

While going through the list of fully protected templates to see which ones can have their protection reduced, I came across Template:TFAempty. With only 55 transclusions, does it make sense for it to be semi or template protected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on its use and content, I can't see any obvious policy reason it is protected at all. It has few transclusions, they are not in a highly visible area, there's no apparent history of vandalism, no BLP or controversial content. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist, and no great harm will come from unprotecting it, until the vandals arrive. FWIW, there's been an uptick in vandalism on the monthly TFA pages for almost a year now; every time I forget to semi-protect one at the beginning of its month, we get vandalism. But I'll keep an eye on it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it as well. If there is an actual problem with vandalism, semi-protection is easily applied. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

50th anniversary of the release of Sgt Pepper

The 1st of June this year will be the 50th anniversary of the release of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which has been called "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded". I'd like to make the contentious suggestion that it is is re-run as TFA for that day. As it was TFA on 21 June 2014 it doesn't meet the criteria we've discussed recently for re-runs but I think it would be merited as it will be something that will be in the news in in many countries around the world. Perhaps it wasn't the most Earth-shattering event in the history of the world but an interesting milestone in popular culture nevertheless. The original nominator for FAC was user:GabeMc who has since retired. Richerman (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If we ask everyone to come vote at RfCs, and then we ignore the preferences they chose (a 5-year wait between appearances), then people get cranky and stop participating, and a few will decide that we can't be trusted. So, I'm sorry, no can do. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Richerman (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA and primary authors again

There is another aspect of nominating TFAs without consulting primary authors that is beginning to concern me. Requesting Khalid Muhammad Abdallah al-Mihdhar on his birthday was never going to end well, and I wonder if the primary editors would have agreed to this had they been consulted? Less seriously, would the primary authors of Richard Feynman have agree to his birthday nom this year, when next year is the centennial of his birth? I've closed request because 2018 seems much more appropriate.

People can't nominate at FAC unless they are significant contributors or have consulted the main editors (assuming they are active). Apart from issues of courtesy, it seems to me that several recent issues at TFAR, including those I've mentioned, could have been avoided if we had a similar approach here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It will take me a few days to dig out of my work pile, but I just wanted to pop in to say: it's starting to appear to Mike, Jim and me that we have consensus on this, and Jim's points make sense. If nothing changes in a few days, we're in favor of adding the language that's been a fixture at the top of the WP:FAC page to TFAR, that is, "[TFAR] nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Another thing we're ready to make a call on very soon: it looks like there's no interest in having that one-time discussion on which articles should never run at TFA. We thought it was the decent thing to do to give people a chance to talk about it, because it's true that the expectations changed over the years and that wasn't handled in a completely transparent way, and we get that a few people have been upset about that. (Everyone is important here; it doesn't matter that it's not a lot of people, they deserve the same respect everyone else does.) There are some legitimate reasons why some articles shouldn't run, but if no one wants to talk about this, it looks like we can scratch that point off the list. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

When nominators object to TFA

Okay, let's discuss a few points that were raised above and see if we can tweak the rules so that (almost) everyone is happy. I'm using "nom" to mean FAC nominator(s).

• Does anyone object to the idea of not rerunning TFAs if a nom objects? (We didn't start rerunning TFAs until the recent RfC, so this seems fair; reruns weren't something that nominators knew they were signing up for, and even if some noms object, we'll still have lots of rerunnable FAs to choose from.)
• For FAs that have not yet run on the Main Page, most people above want the community to have some say over whether an article should run, that is, they don't think the nom has permanent, sole veto power. But we're also seeing above that some noms are stressed by this, not knowing when their article will appear at TFA, or whether the community will support their wishes. Would it work for everyone if we say that, going forward, it's okay for any nom to mention in a FAC nomination statement that they don't want their article to appear on the Main Page? (It seems to me that if reviewers are notified up front about this, that solves two problems: they're alerted that there may be something unexpected or controversial about the article before they review it, and they're also alerted that the time they invest reviewing that article isn't going to produce the usual payoff, a Main Page appearance ... and maybe that's something they care about. Reviewers are the scarce resource at FAC, and for that reason among others, we shouldn't be keeping them in the dark if something unusual is going on in a FAC.)
• For current and past FAC nominations, the question is a little harder ... if the article never appears on the Main Page, most of the editors and reviewers who invested time getting the article up to FA standards wouldn't have expected that; filling the Main Page slot was the original purpose of FAC started soon after FAC was created, and most people still see that as its main purpose. Would it work for everyone if we have a one-time discussion, and invite any noms who don't want some or all of their nominations to run on the Main Page to come explain why those articles shouldn't run? I don't think this will turn into a big thing; I was doing the talk page notifications for TFA in 2015 and 2016, and during all that time, one person didn't want any of their articles to run, and maybe 3 or 4 had occasional reservations. I also don't think it will be a contentious discussion; people understand that some things stress some people more than others. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• For current and past FAC nominations, Mike, Jim and I don't see a downside to giving a solo nom the right to veto a Main Page appearance for the article they nommed, permanently at WP:TFAR, and for two years from the date of promotion if one of the TFA coords selects it to run. This is in addition to the right to show up at the one-time discussion mentioned above and argue your case. Sarah, Sagaciousphil, Ealdgyth, Imzadi1979 and everyone else: any objections or comments? - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (Pinging people who may be sitting on articles that they don't want to nominate at FAC under the current rules to see if this works for them; we're assuming everyone who watches WT:FAC or this page will see the discussion. Note that, if the FAC promotion rate stays near its average over the last 12 months, most FAs will appear at TFA, eventually, except as noted above.)

I get the feeling that a portion of nominators dont care if they get main page or not...ie its nice if you are in the mood, but not the motivating factor. I personally think MP is great, but would be unopposed to some sort of opt out clause - it might alleviate stress for some. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I've seen messy situations arise out of a TFA day for an article, and it dissuaded me from wanting articles to appear as the TFA except when there's an anniversary connection. The "Featured" in "Featured Article" to me does not mean TFA, it means "we've featured this in our list here as some of our finest work", and attaining FA itself is the usual reward, not the TFA. TFA is more like an extra reward that comes with some extra pain. (Either the article attracts a bunch of crappy or misinformed editing that requires vigilant and careful reversion to retain the few actual improvements, or the page views feel low.) I'm not really sitting on many unnominated articles at the moment. I'm just at a lull in nominations because I've attained two FA-connected goals; there are FTs now on two of the three types of state highway classifications in my home state, and an FT on the third would require another 80 FAs to attain, which is frankly impractical at the present. Imzadi 1979 → 01:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lets face it; MP can be highly stressful. I was there on Friday last and templated left right and center with poorly thought through neutrality "concerns", and worse a frankly ridiculous Requested Move, which led to the rather sad situation where myself and Gerda were edit warring with a bot to keep the huge RM banner off the page in its supposed day of glory. In the end, much later as she is not omni-present wonder-woman, SarahSV came up with a very clever solution. But still. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

... blushing, and praising also Dank for having the clever solution first, - let's seriously consider that a RM is no good idea on TFA day or the three days after, unless the name is wrong, which should have been noticed during the FAC process --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Filling the Main Page slot was the original purpose of FAC" isn't true; when "brilliant prose" became FAC there was no such thing as TFA.

I tweaked my wording above to "started soon after", and gave a link. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Featured article" was just the assessment level above "Good article", and the "featured" was in the sense Imzadi1979 uses above, as "featured in our list of excellent articles"—the discussions that changed FAC from "if nobody objects this will be promoted" to a formal review process are here and long-predate TFA. (This is what the Main Page looked like at the time.) ("One person didn't want any of their articles to run, and maybe 3 or 4 had occasional reservations" doesn't quite give the full picture. Those 4–5 people are some of Wikipedia's most active writers and the impact of losing them won't be negligible; plus alongside the hardcore of opposers you also have people like myself and Eric who won't try to actively veto mainpage appearances, but are still extremely unenthusiastic about the idea.)

I'd be very opposed to re-running TFAs except in the very specific circumstances of "the article has radically changed and the editor who made the radical change is on-board with re-running it". Having TFA forced on something you've worked on is an unpleasant violation, but is a risk one implicitly signs up to when nominating at FAC, on the understanding that if it happens it will only happen once and the article will henceforward have immunity. I haven't nominated anything at FAC since the "rerun clause" was passed, and I know I'm not the only one.

If you want formal support/opposes for the four points above, then:

• Support not rerunning if the nom objects except in the specific circumstances when the article has changed so radically it's effectively a new article;
• Oppose a "speak now or forever hold your peace" clause where the nominator is expected to mention at FAC-stage if they'll have objections in future to TFA, as I don't think it would be workable (topics which are uncontroversial and obscure at the time they pass FAC can become very contentious in future);
• Strongly oppose the "one-time discussion" idea. I don't share your optimism that it won't be a contentious discussion, and think it's much more likely to be a show-trial for anyone who tries to object, that will be brandished as evidence of "being unwilling to follow consensus" for years to come;
• Support in principle giving nominators the right to veto TFAR requests as a common courtesy which we should be doing anyway. I'd extend it further, and give anyone who's put in substantive work on the article (regardless of whether they're the nominator) the right to veto TFARs without having to put up with the usual "you're exhibiting WP:OWN" whining, and the right to at least defer those scheduled by the coordinators. (The delegates/coordinators have always had a near-supernatural ability to schedule TFAs on days when the authors won't be available to clean up the mess.) ‑ Iridescent 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent has written a lot of Featured Articles, and for some reason, many of them (such as Charles Domery) got many more hits than other articles when they were at TFA. Does anyone object to giving Iridescent a permanent TFA veto for articles where he was the solo nom? - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd object to anyone being given exceptional status—this is something that should be done for everyone as a courtesy, and we shouldn't be singling individuals out for special treatment. If giving everyone a veto would be too restrictive, then a "anyone who has had more than foo TFAs in the past twelve months" would work. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How about avoid such privileges and simply say that principal editors of a FA or FAC can say that they don't want it to appear, best perhaps say so already in the nomination, but don't give it veto quality. It is something that can be discussed. - If I see such a thing in a FAC I am warned that what I invest as a reviewer will not result in being featured on the Main page. I enjoy to see reviewed articles there, such as Richard Wagner, Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) and Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce), and might be less ready to review one that is supposed to stay a secret. - I am quite happy with GA quality for an article, and only go for FAC if I think it deserves more attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think WP:OWN says everything I need to say on this subject; the nominators opinion counts exactly as much as anyone elses does. --Jayron32 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Does OWN prevent us from listing specific articles as exempt from TFA, after a discussion at WT:TFA? - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Invoking OWN here is like invoking NOTCENSORED when discussing sexist images. All it does is try to shut the discussion down. These articles are someone's work product. Maybe we forget that the people who wrote them hold the copyright; that the licence allows others to use and change the articles doesn't alter that. It's unethical for us to use articles in ways that make the authors uncomfortable, or even miserable, when we can easily avoid it.
  Dank, FAC really isn't about TFA; it's true that sometimes authors are aiming for the main page when they nominate, but in most cases they just want the article to reach the top class. Some responses:

• Support allowing authors to veto TFA nominations. Also support copying to WP:TFAR words from WP:FAC: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it."
• Support rerunning TFAs only with the main authors' consent. It isn't reasonable to expect people to drop everything to update an FA they might have written a decade ago, especially when it has already run.
• Oppose the one-time discussion idea.
• Oppose giving "a solo nom the right to veto ... for two years from the date of promotion if one of the TFA coords selects it to run." There should be no time limit. The two-year limit overlooks that one of the objections is expecting authors to rework old articles.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Support the veto, whether or not the article has run, mainly per Sarah but also others. I note that there have been major conflicts arising out of TFA day. Further, the co-ordinators no longer have to scrape the bottom of the barrel as they can re-run articles. I think the veto is a courtesy to the people who have put in much work, and that should be respected. TFA does not get the views it once did, as few people come in through the main page. I don't think the urgency to have every single article available is there anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens with the other points, I think Sarah's idea of copying the FAC admonition to TFAR is excellent and should be implemented right away. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support not making an FA a TFA after discussion about the individual article.
• Oppose blanket veto of all articles by a given user to appear as TFA, per WP:own.
• The above goes for any FAs, whether they have run as TFA already or not. FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for participating everyone. I get that this can be difficult to talk about, but what you're saying is helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Sarah, Iridescent, Wehwalt & others:

• Oppose - rerunning unless the primary author agrees.
• Support - the right of not having to agree to TFA if it causes hardship. When a nom is made to FAC there's no way of knowing one's circumstances six or 12 months, or even years, in the future.
• Oppose - the one time discussion. I've haven't a clue what it is, so can't agree to it until explained better.
• Strongly oppose - drive by nominations at TFAR by editors who aren't primary contributores.
• Support - notifying editors when an article will appear on the main page. Even co-noms.

– Victoriaearle (tk) 04:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone can feel free to ask for a formal close, but the main points seem fairly straightforward: there's no enthusiasm for mentioning during a FAC nomination that you don't want the article to go to TFA, and there's no enthusiasm for a public discussion of how we handle the TFA-eligibility of current FAs. The question about reruns doesn't matter much: lots of primary editors would love to see their work on the Main Page a second time. We're currently only scheduling about one rerun-TFA per week, so as long as we select 4 or 5 in advance at all times that aren't controversial, the question will never come up about what to do when the primary editors don't want a TFA to rerun. As discussed below, I added this language to TFAR: "Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR." Questions? - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Saturday is coming

You don't usually wait this long to summarize an article. Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Art. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 7, 2017

There's a mistake regarding the summary of TFA, which is Subtropical Storm Andrea. At the bottom of that summary, it says that it is Part of the Off-season Atlantic hurricanes featured topic., although that topic is actually a Good Topic. Nickag989^talk 09:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Right you are. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, my error, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Kuiper belt

The TFA coordinators do a brilliant job and the TFAs are generally of a high standard, but I thought the 12 May one on the Kuiper belt, which I got around to reading yesterday, was an exception. I have posted some queries on the article talk page, but in general I thought it was a dated account of a fast moving field, and well below FA standard.. The section on exploration was confused, it spoke of things in the past as forthcoming, and it had nothing about the results of the New Horizons mission or Planet Nine. I think that re-running old TFAs should be restricted to stable topics, not ones where the content can quickly become dated. Dudley Miles (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Planet Nine is not in the Kuiper Belt. It's estimated average distance is 14 times further than the furthest part of the Kuiper Belt. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The article on Planet Nine says that its highly eliptical orbit may come as close as 200 AU, 4 times further than the most distant Kuiper Belt objects, and perturb their orbits. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, Dudley. We need more input on what kinds of TFAs to rerun. Jim will be back in a week. - Dank (push to talk) 10:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#TFA_subheadings

Just a pointer, for people who watch WP:ERRORS and are interested in the discussion. "TFA today" and "TFA tomorrow" subheadings have been added. Several editors seem to be strongly in favor. It seems like a nuisance, but it's a nuisance I can live with. (They tried to add just "Today" and "Tomorrow" first, which was awful.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

TFA more than once?

I've just received a notice that Sweet Track has been selected to be TFA June 15, 2017 so I was going to look at making sure it is still up to scratch, references work etc but remembered that article was also TFA on June 3, 2012. It was my understanding (although I can't see any rules on this) that an article could only be TFA once (based on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 12#former featured articles) - has this changed or have I got it wrong?— Rod ^talk 13:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 9#Request for comment on changes to the "Today's featured article" slot on the main page for the change. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. An interesting read which I hadn't seen before & I don't normally have TFA watchlisted. I'll take a look at Sweet Track but if anyone else could help with what needs updating/improving that would be helpful, as I'm short of time over the next few weeks before scheduled TFA.— Rod ^talk 13:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Princess Mononoke

Requesting that this be closed as the article in question is not yet an FA. Would do it myself, but I'm not experienced with TFAs and would like someone with more experience to do it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the heads up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

July 1 Canada 150 years old

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2017 is a huge intro.......perhaps best not to use that wall of text.......i suggest Portal:Canada/Introduction text instead. --Moxy (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing all the scheduling first then coming back to work on the blurbs. Portal:Canada is a good tip, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive links

Go to today's featured article and click "Archive" near the bottom. It shows featured articles for next month (August), not this month (July). Well, it would show August, except no August articles are ready yet, so that doesn't seem to be a helpful link. Is that intentional? Every July article has the same problem/feature, but every June article doesn't. June articles are encoded as {{TFAfooter|Month=June|Year=2017}}. July articles are encoded as {{TFAfooter|Month={{#time:F|{{#time:F Y}} +1 month}}|Year=2017}}, which isn't explained at all in the template document. So should I change every July article to {{TFAfooter|Month=July|Year=2017}}, or is there some mysterious purpose to that +1 month stuff? Art LaPella (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There can't be any purpose to that. I assume Dank can explain why he did this. I have corrected the first week. The rest he can fix. Bencherlite^Talk 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. Art, yes please, could you fix it? The problem is the "create" link (go to WP:TFAA, hit the right arrow to get to August, see the "create" link at the bottom of each day) has always been broken ... it automatically inserts this month rather than next month ... and I do all my scheduling the prior month, so the create link always gives the wrong month. I tried to fix this by changing CURRENTMONTHNAME to NEXTMONTHNAME at Template:TFA_preload while I was scheduling, then I changed it back. I didn't know that the code there would point to August as soon as July actually arrived. The only solution I know of, until someone wants to recode it, is to ignore the "create" link when scheduling. - Dank (push to talk) 12:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Art LaPella (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem solved (probably) by PrimeHunter; see WP:VPT#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2017. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting... I never used the "create" link on the monthly subpage to start a TFA blurb, so I never knew that there was a potential issue there. Nifty resolution, though. Bencherlite^Talk 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Castle

I'm a castles nut (See User:Dweller/castles) so pleased as punch to see this article on Main Page. Again. WP:TFAO says "no FA can appear more than once as TFA", yet Castle appeared in 2010. Is there a change in the rules or will this appear as an entry in TFAO? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

See the current discussion at WT:TFAR, and the most recent archives to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely missed that RfC. Interesting. Looks like TFAO needs an edit then. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That'll be the TFAO that I updated with this change about two months ago? Bencherlite^Talk 17:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Weird. My eyes must have glided right on past the parentheses. I might have a go at copy-editing that later; feel free to revert me if I get it wrong. Wish I'd seen the RfC while it was live. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Brandmeister#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 31, 2017

I don't have a strong feeling about this, but the current discussions at WT:LEAD suggests that opinions have changed quite a lot on Wikipedia about how much parenthetical information to put in lead sentences. Since TFA is more condensed than article text, we probably should be avoiding any parenthetical information that's not relevant. The question is whether a death date is relevant; there are arguments both ways. I'd be happy to hear any opinions on this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing it here, for proper archiving of community discussions, rather than on a user talk page. Doubtless some consensus will emerge.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt on a central venue for this discussion. I'm not a fan of DOB–YOD. A possible way round it would be something like this:

Gubby Allen (1902–1989) was a cricketer who captained England in eleven Test matches. Born in Sydney, Australia, on 31 July 1902, his family moved to London when he was six. In first-class matches, he played for Middlesex and Cambridge University. A fast bowler and hard-hitting lower-order batsman, Allen was appointed England captain in 1936 and led the team during the unsuccessful 1936–37 tour of Australia, when the home team won 3–2 having lost the first two matches. He captained England in a final Test series in the West Indies in 1947–48. He later became an influential cricket administrator who held key positions in the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), which effectively ruled English cricket at the time. He was instrumental in the creation of an MCC coaching manual, and worked hard to eliminate illegal bowling actions. As chairman of selectors from 1955 to 1961, he presided over a period of great success for English cricket, during which he worked closely with the Test captain Peter May. In 1963, he became MCC President, and was made the club's Treasurer the following year. In this role, he was deeply involved in the D'Oliveira affair, a controversy over the potential selection of Basil D'Oliveira to tour South Africa. He was knighted in 1986.

That adds in a sentence to explain the date connection, cutting back on a detail later, and avoids a space-consuming DOB-DOD. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No objection, if that's what people want. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'll make the change, Bench. If we don't get any flak at ERRORS, your way is fine, I think, in TFAs where we have a natural opening to talk about when the subject was born, as we do on the 29th and 31st. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent TFAs

@WP:TFA coordinators - might I invite a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs, and a comparison of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2016 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2017? WP:TFAREC, the "recent TFAs" page, is linked in every TFAR nomination, and it makes it harder for nominators (and perhaps also for coordinators) to see what types of articles have been chosen if the monthly entries are not kept up to date. So far, only 1 month out of 7 in 2017 has been completed.... Bencherlite^Talk 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware of these pages; not to say I wasn't told about them, but if I was I overlooked it. I have been scheduling without the benefit of these pages; I've been eyeballing the monthly lists and keeping a spreadsheet for my own months on my computer, a little less detailed than this, and only for my own months. Are these really that necessary for TFAR? I haven't seen many issues with conflicts in topics that this would have avoided. Although if I have in fact been scheduling articles without appropriate separation of topics, please do say so. And if these lists are necessary, could a bot do them (except for the country and how chosen columns)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll support whatever Mike and Jim want to do. Bots and/or volunteers are always an option. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The pages allow easy compilation of tables such as the one Brian produced in this discussion, which is a useful way to explain what the spread of TFA topics is, for example. They enable nominators at TFAR to see with little difficulty when the last similar article was, which is one of the fields they are asked to complete in a nomination template. They enable anyone else to see at a glance the range of articles being selected, how long articles are waiting, etc. It enables easy calculation of how many articles are nominated through TFAR and how many are coordinators' picks. I started these tables going when I was TFA coordinator (and doing everything single-handed), building on the work of others dating back to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics 2010. The tables were kept up to date by Brian, Chris and Dank as recently as last year. Personally I think it would be a really shame if this resource can't be kept going by the current team. If it is to be abandoned, and no TFA stats are to be kept from now on, please mark the pages {{historical}} and remove the links to WP:TFAREC from the nomination instructions. Bencherlite^Talk 21:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The page title and the first sentence, or first x characters for some x (from the articles themselves or from the TFA pages), would give a better description of what an article is about than a single description picked by a TFA coord. Even the article titles alone would usually (not always) have more useful information. So if it were simply possible to give a table of contents for a month or year at TFA, nominators might find that more helpful. The current pages don't have that, but I imagine it's doable. I'll go ask about feasibility of both of these approaches at WP:VPT. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Page title/first sentence/first x characters don't allow sortability into types that follow the topics and sub-topics listed at WP:FA (and thereafter can be refined further as desired, or not). Page title by itself would be particularly useless (e.g. how many people, without looking, can say if Madman's Drum is a music group, an album, a novel, or a film; or what William Speirs Bruce does or did). Bencherlite^Talk 23:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Like Mike, I've done my own spreadsheet, and I've barely been aware of the pages under discussion. If a bot can do it, that would be good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a bot could do the topic area too, by identifying the section in WP:FA that the article is listed in. And it might even be able to fill in the "How chosen" by looking at TFAR and TFARP. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting to see if others -- nominators -- would comment. I'm still reluctant to keep these pages up to date, because of the time commitment, but I could be convinced if I were to hear from regular nominators that the page is really helpful to them. @Bencherlite: I was going to look at the page views to see how much these pages were used, but I see both the pages you linked were created just a couple of days ago. Presumably the content was pasted from somewhere else? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking for a condensed listing of the monthly TFAs

What we've never had but always needed at TFA is a condensed form of, for instance, WP:Today's featured article/June 2017, with just enough text from each day to understand what the article is about. No images would be best, but versions with and without images would be even better. The first sentence from each day would be best if possible, but the first x characters for some reasonable x would be okay. Anyone here want to take a shot at this? Any suggestions on where to ask for help? (I got no responses at WP:VPT.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Moratorum on American coins being on front page

A quick look at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Numismatics shows there have been a lot of featured articles on American coins on the front page, as with the Roosevelt dime presently. It is to the point where I think it violates WP:UNDUE. Even as somebody who likes coins, I think the fraction of the time the are on the front page is disproportionate to the topics available in an encyclopedia. When you couple this to the fact that nearly all the coins on the front page have been American coins, it's clearly causing Wikipedia to have an American bias. For heck's sake, compare the number of featured articles in mathematics --- a broad and universal academic topic --- to the number of featured articles on American coins. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Topics available is not the same as featured topics available. Once on TFA, they can only run again after five years, and add to that that some FA writers refuse to have their articles featured on the mainpage. The thing about featured articles is that it is relatively few people writing about narrow fields that interest them. That's why we have an article about a bird, a fungus, an Australian military person, a video game, a Bollywood movie, etc. every single month. Nothing to do about that than to produce more articles, and they don't write themselves. Anyhow, if you want a given topic featured on the front page, then nominate it, that's how TFA works. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the coins, though, having frequent articles about birds and fungi is fine and does not trigger any worry about national bias. I don't follow WP:TFA much but if the participation and culture there is so anemic that such an obvious issue has no easy solution, then maybe I might participate. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As the principal author of these I suppose I should say something. I've recently participated in two FAs on British coins (and more in the pipeline) and one on independent Hawaii. The problem is references. I have all the references I need for US and am getting pretty well fixed on UK. Anything else would be difficult. I suspect that the UK and Hawaiian really won't help with complaints of bias. I don't have an answer for you. And having seen the elephant, I don't care whether the articles I've helped out with appear on main page or not. I guess there's a certain accomplishment for WikiProject: Numismatics being objected to "because we are too menny". :)--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work on those articles. This, of course, isn't about the high quality of the US coin articles, but rather the repetitive selection of those articles for TFA. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. This I would have thought least controversial in that regard, as it is not an obscure commemorative, but a coin Americans today have in their pocket change, and it's the first time we've run one of those in some years.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And, as someone formally involved in scheduling TFAs, the idea that frequent articles about fungi won't generate complaints is flat-out wrong. They do. As do video games, warfare-related items, modern music... The TFA co-ordinators have a limited pool of eligible articles, not all of the "topics available in an encyclopedia", because the FAs are not equally spread throughout all of the topics available in an encyclopaedia. If someone wants to write lots of articles to FA status about a particular topic, then that's reflected in the available pool. Having a ban on any particular topic appearing as FA just means that the other topics are used more frequently, and so the "problem" continues. Bencherlite^Talk 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a big difference though between complaints over frequency and a concern about a NPOV violation over frequency. I do not see fungi articles, causing any serious UNDUE concern. The limited pool is definitely a more valid defense. But certainly awareness that the coins could pose an NPOV issue, which perhaps is something that hadn't even been considered before, is the first step in countering it. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we have an NPOV policy for selections of articles for the main page - is this a problem with DYK or POTD? Do they worry about this sort of concern? I'm afraid I'm not seeing how NPOV applies to the selection of articles for the main page sections. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a good question and deserves to be raised. The scope of the NPOV policy applies to "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia". I would argue that the main page as the "cover page" of the encyclopedia fulls under that umbrella. The actual NPOV policy itself is written primarily with articles in mind because we need it to be somewhat concrete. I'm definately open to reading and thinking about opposing thinking, but I strongly believe that not applying NPOV philosophy to the main page, in particular when pragmatically possible as with the FA selections, is a serious project-level mistake and would be an egregious violation of WP:COMMON SENSE. For illustrative purposes, what if instead of American coins we were over-using articles about Israel while neglecting articles on Palestine? I think it's obvious that this too would be the kind of POV pushing that Wikipedia aims to avoid unlike a project like Conservapedia. As any journalist knows, the selection of the stories is the best kind of bias. Coins are a status symbol for a country. Having the main page chant "America" too often doesn't give a worldly outlook. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Do participate! The best solution for having a topic on the Main page is to write about it in the required quality. I managed a few times, but can tell you that it is not easy and takes a lot of time. At the moment I rather fill a red link a day and have that featured on the Main page, in the humble DYK section. On the German Wikipedia, I received complaints about two many Bach cantatas. - Perhaps I should a write another FA, after all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. I'm one of the TFA schedulers, and would be delighted to have more diverse articles on the front page, but the options are limited to what is an FA and hasn't run before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah ... un huh ... so if we limit a subject matter for TFA, we're in effect saying, "Promoted to FA ... but don't bother asking for TFA, because we've had enough of that topic. So ... thanks for your hard work, but we'll just recycle something else if we need to fill a date." There is no other effort like FA, and to tell someone who put out that effort that it can't be TFA is a bit of an insult. As far as how much of any topic on the main page, all sections struggle with that. Please don't punish the editors who work so hard to get something to FA in the first place.— Maile (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We can only change how we schedule if consensus changes. Jason, you'll find a heavily attended RfC in the most recent archives that supported the status quo in many respects. If there's a groundswell of agitation for some kind of change, I promise I won't get in the way, but I'm not seeing it yet. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Font size 26

There isn't much interest in how Wikipedia looks for those of us who increase the font size to see it better. But I thought I'd report how September 1 looks at font size 26 instead of 12 (which I think is the default, in Firefox anyway.) As it appears in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2017 (but not in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 1, 2017) the "Rimsky-Korsakov" at the end appears as "Rimsky-", with "Korsakov" four inches to the right and one line below. Art LaPella (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Font size is set by the reader, not by Wikipedia, and every browser/OS combination has a different default; in addition, the width of the Main Page columns isn't absolute but is proportional to the reader's browser window. We can't possibly anticipate every permutation of settings, nor should we try. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA Statistics

Today's Featured Article (January 2017 - June 2017)

category	articles	page views	average
Birds	6	147935	24656
Royalty and nobility biographies	6	233613	38936
Mammals	8	280443	35055
Physics and astronomy	4	172002	43001
Media	13	403368	31028
Music	10	292300	29230
Politics and government	1	23665	23665
Literature and theatre biographies	3	116415	38805
Art, architecture, and archaeology biographies	1	20009	20009
Sport and recreation biographies	5	167199	33440
Media biographies	2	131228	65614
Wars, battles and events	5	274259	54852
Literature and theatre	15	524147	34943
Law	1	37215	37215
Numismatics	2	55502	27751
Meteorology	2	34989	17495
Dinosaurs	2	77927	38964
Royalty and nobility	1	53845	53845
Culture and society	5	246645	49329
Video gaming	10	379979	37998
History	5	283017	56603
History biographies	5	223502	44700
Geography and places	7	207258	29608
Warfare biographies	7	265318	37903
Fungi	3	76859	25620
Geology and geophysics	1	20473	20473
Religion, mysticism and mythology	3	134930	44977
Sport and recreation	7	179745	25678
Politics and government biographies	5	170528	34106
Transport	9	320484	35609
Music biographies	5	172091	34418
Warfare	2	94836	47418
Warfare matériel	8	358448	44806
Plants	1	20892	20892
Art, architecture, and archaeology	11	384354	34941
Total	181	6585420	36384

The average TFA in this period had been promoted 1,211 days before. Note that there were only two articles on coins, and three on mushrooms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I filled in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs. But I have no way of knowing who chose an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together. I did January, April, June and August. Jimfbleak did February and September, and I think May too. I think Crisco 1492 did March, and Dank did July. I have the details for "How chosen" for at least a couple of my months and will add those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Orthorhombic, who expressed interest in helping recently. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie and Dank: Thanks for this information. If you have precise instructions on the format of the 'How Chosen' column (or whether you want it included at all), I would be happy to add the requisite data. Orthorhombic, 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We do want it included, thanks. Mike and Jim's spreadsheets list whether an article came through TFAR. I've only done one month so far this year, July, and these were the July articles that came through TFAR. For articles that didn't come through TFAR, the scheduling coord only needs to appear once, toward the beginning of the month. - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Orthorhombic: I'll send the spreadsheets shortly; thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Resigning from my TFA coordinator position

I'm resigning as one of the TFA coordinators, effective when I complete the scheduling for October, which I'm working on now. I was concerned when I took the job that it would absorb too much of the time I have to write articles, and so it has proved, so I've decided to stop here. Thanks to everyone who has helped out with TFA over the past year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You've been one of the great ones, Mike. (Btw, in case anyone is getting antsy ... we have a new coord in mind. More soon.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My thanks too, great working with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sad to see you give this up, but I completely understand it might have engulfed you. Thanks for all your invaluable contributions as coordinator. Job well done. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your workload has been very high over the past year, Mike, what with TFA, contributing several great FAs, and helping motivate FAC reviewers with your discussions and review tallies. Big thanks for all of that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA reruns for November

It's not easy to juggle the various concerns about reruns ... maybe the simplest thing would be just to ask for feedback one month at a time. For November, I'm planning on running:

• Banff National Park (Nov 25; anniversary of establishment of Canada's oldest national park)
• Bodyline (Nov 23; a cricket request from Dweller, to run on the first day of The Ashes)
• History of American football (just before Thanksgiving)
• Thriller (Michael Jackson album) (Nov 30; 35th anniversary of the all-time best-selling album)
• DNA nanotechnology (Mike has scheduled for October 9). I want to run hard science occasionally to show the range of what goes on at FAC. DNA isn't just the stuff of life, it's also an ideal engineering material if you're trying to use molecules to build things ... who knew?

All of these have held up well, and the main editors have offered to polish them up a bit. There's an occasional sentence without a reference, but when I've brought that up, the main editors haven't had a problem with that ... is it a problem for anyone here? - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like sensible choices to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. I want to pass along that there are a few passages without references: in the football article, see Other professional leagues and American football outside the United States (1874–present), and for Thriller, see the last paragraph of Recording. Bodyline needs a little help, but Sarastro1 has started looking at it, and Dweller has offered to help. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Breaking news: as of today, it looks like Western Front (World War I) has a chance of surviving WP:FAR. We have no other top-level WWI article to run for 11 November, so if it survives, I'll probably run this one. We're aiming for five reruns per month, but the actual total has been four or five, and an occasional six should be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more important to have a top WWI article for 11 November 2018, the centennial of the Armistice? Unless something's coming down the pike ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

[Side note: I just added dates to these above.] Well it may be moot at this point, because the article is taking more flak at FAR now, so it looks like we'll only have 4 reruns in November. If it does actually manage to survive FAR, I'll definitely grab it for this Nov 11, because there's no telling whether it will still be a Featured Article a year from now. We (at Milhist) can probably manage to come up with something for the 100th anniversary. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Banff National Park - promoted in 2006 with approx 4700 words, has approx 6700 words now. How do we know the additions meet the FA criteria?
• History of American football - promoted in 2007 with approx. 7500 words, has approx. 11,000 today. How do we know the additions meet the FA criteria? Also, the images cause text squash (on my computer) and I think it needs tidying. If Bodyline goes, why run another sports article so soon? This could run any year in November, or during the NFL playoffs in January, or during the Bowl games late in December, or during Super Bowl week.
• Thriller (Michael Jackson album) - promoted in 2008 with approx. 3900 words, now has 4700 words (which isn't bad). Still, how do we know those additions me the FA criteria? I stopped scrolling after noticing a full para without citations.
• DNA nanotechnology - promoted in 2012 with approx. 4400 words, now has 4700 words (which isn't bad). Still, how do we know the additions satisfy the FA criteria?

It's best we don't sacrifice FA quality for TFA, especially as long as there are articles that have passed FAC more recently and haven't yet been TFA. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reruns

[Also pinging WT:FAC, WT:GAN.]

We had an RfC last March where it was agreed that:

The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for rerunnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.

We've been inviting individual discussions, but we wanted to get more experience with reruns before having a bigger discussion. Now that we've all had a chance to see how it works and think about what we want ... what general categories of reruns would you guys like to see? (The coords have some ideas, but we'd like to hear your ideas first.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems a good opportunity to extend the range of TFA topics without depleting the limited stocks of unused articles we have in some categories (some categories are I believe exhausted). This, I remember, was a big concern during my own coordinator days. As to a general policy, we are currently overflowing at the gills with FAs on flora/fauna, military history and films/TV, and they keep on coming – these topics account for practically half the 84 promotions in June/July/August, and I think we should avoid rerunning anything in these categories. I can suggest three of my minority-interest articles for rerun, if that helps: Cosmo Gordon Lang, Talbot Baines Reed and Tichborne case. You could also look at some of the polar articles promoted between 2008 and 2010. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much, Brian. Your point about extending the range without depleting the stocks is exactly the thing I was hoping someone would bring up first. We need to extend the range because there are people, insiders and outsiders alike, who think the FAC process doesn't work the way it should. I concede that FAC has its flaws, but I think the main criticisms are off-base, and we can use reruns at TFA to prove that. For outsiders, we can demonstrate that we haven't fallen prey to the overspecialization that burdens so much of academia , and that we haven't lost track of the kinds of things that random readers enjoy and understand. For insiders, we can prove that, even though FAC doesn't cover all the topics we might want over the span of a year, it has done much better with that over a time scale of 10 years. By dividing up the scheduling into a small pile of reruns to complement the larger pile of FAs that haven't run yet, we can run all the mushrooms and birds and ships and coins ... eventually, without prejudice to any article ... while using the reruns to reassure people that FAC isn't any of the things they might imagine it is ... that over the long run, it's not obscure, narrow, or cliquish. (And whatever cliques there are keep changing. Eventually, anyone can succeed there, it just takes some patience, effort, and teamwork.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the way the rerun policy is being implemented. Given that we all work on what we please, and a lot of them fall into the categories mentioned above, it was the only sensible solution and it seems to be implemented well. At least the next two solo FACs I nominate will not be coin-related, by the way ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Always glad to hear that (the part about no objections, not the part about the coins :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

As you know I'm not a fan of the new rerun policy, but I'd be inclined to waive the usual (and correct) "everything has an equal chance" policy, and for the reruns operate an explicit "only run things where there's a genuine chance that general readers will find the topic interesting". Yes, it's sometimes hard to second-guess the public—I imagine you'd have got fairly long odds if you'd bet beforehand that Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm would be the most-viewed TFA of 2016—but some topics are inherently more interesting than others. (To take only my over-five-years-ago TFAs as an example to avoid causing offense by calling someone else's work boring, I'd have far less issue with Halkett boat, Daniel Lambert or Biddenden Maids being re-run than I would Vauxhall Bridge, Tunnel Railway or Norwich Market.) One of the commonest complaints about the Main Page—that it highlights boring stuff about which most readers couldn't possibly care—is perfectly valid (looked at DYK recently?). By restricting repeats to "broad interest" while keeping the existing 'fair chance for all' policy for first-time appearances, it would still allow the inherently boring topics a fair chance while going some way to addressing the perceived Today's Featured Mushroom problem. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you just want a quick-and-dirty rule that isn't easily gamed and doesn't mean delegates having to make value judgments as to what constitutes "worth repeating", No article which has more than 20 entries in its category at WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page can be re-run would be workable. ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We can demonstrate that we haven't fallen prey to the overspecialization. All evidence indicates that the readers don't get tired of topics as quickly as we do. The articles on coins actually do quite well, and articles on warships are perennially popular. The readers would most probably enjoy more articles on movie stars and TV shows. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Very good, keep the comments and article requests coming. There are a few articles that might meet most of these criteria that aren't in good shape at the moment, and I'll start asking on the talk pages to see if we can get some help fixing them. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC) And Iri, I'm not above "quick and dirty" when needed, but for the moment, the discussion process seems to be working ... as long as the suggestions don't outnumber the slots and do a good job of meeting the criteria, we can go with suggestions (as long as people are willing to vet and repair the articles they're suggesting). - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, playing devil's advocate I could at least make a case that at least partly the causality works the other way—that is, it's not that the public has an unceasing fascination with battleships, constellations, coins, birds and transport but that the typical contents of the Main Page helps cement Wikipedia's partly-deserved reputation as the online equivalent of Boys Own Magazine, and thus to some extent it's the content that defines the community rather than the community that defines the content. In the last 3 months there have been two TFA biographies of women and fifteen of men, plus some all-male group articles like The Beatles. I'm aware of the reason for this disparity—and have made myself very unpopular with the GGTF for pointing out that like it or not the nature of most of the world's history means there are more notable male than female historical figures—but I can totally believe that some readers will find Wikipedia's systemic bias off-putting and that this will in turn translate into an audience who self-selects to be more receptive to the usual "trains, games and hurricanes" fare. ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging SlimVirgin to this as well, as she's just as qualified as me to talk about TFA and can probably articulate the point I'm (badly) making better than I can. ‑ Iridescent 19:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I personally enjoy articles on mushrooms, birds, ships and coins, and I've helped a lot of those articles get through FAC and TFA. I'm neurodiverse myself (and probably not the only one here), and if anyone's thinking of claiming that FAC is a bit broken (implication: the writers are a bit broken) because it has produced so many mushroom articles, please don't. But I don't think that's what anyone is saying (yet). When FAC produces a ton of anything, IMO that shows Wikipedia at its absolute best. The nutshell here is that readers can get a false impression of how FAC has worked all these years if they only judge it by the articles that haven't run yet at FAC (and by articles that have run, but are in the mold of the articles that haven't run). So the key is to pick reruns that demonstrate FAC's full diversity and success. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've no issue with the mushroom, battleship, banksia, bird etc articles—I'm responsible for seven FAs on disused rural train stations in Buckinghamshire—but it doesn't mean I can't see that readers are more likely to be interested in (1) articles on major topics with a lot of general interest, (2) articles that are in some way relevant to something currently in the news, and (3) articles which tell a genuinely interesting "hey, I learned something really cool today!" story. If we have to have reruns, I see no issue with prioritizing rerunning those articles which a broader cross-section of the readers are likely to find interesting. ‑ Iridescent 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No argument from me, I would think those articles would have broad appeal. I've run about 175 articles by the TFA coords and stuck them at User_talk:Dank/Sandbox/2#Not vetted yet ... you guys can feel free to look at those, or pick your own. Once you've vetted an article you like (choose your own vetting process), please post them at User:Dank/Sandbox/2#TFA reruns. If we get 60 or more posted there, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add a summary of the criteria that have been mentioned here to User:Dank/Sandbox/2, unless there's an objection. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I'd like to read the RfC but can't find a link. When you get a chance can you link it here for those of us who are in the dark. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Adding a ping, @WP:TFA coordinators . Victoriaearle (tk) 18:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Great to see you back, Victoria. It's the last archive to this talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/Archive_9. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm only trying to catch up on what's happened in the past year. I can't be back yet, but I might be able to start reading. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So, I've re-read the RfC and see that in fact I placed an oppose !vote but without a rationale, which was a mistake. In my view the RfC is flawed because it fails to present a binary choice. Instead of asking, "shall we allow re-runs of articles previously showcased on the main page, yes or no?" the way it's formatted is to ask whether articles or lists should be run. This presupposes the decision to re-run articles has been made and muddies the waters for the respondents. Given that there are 1000+ FAs in the list of articles that have not been TFA and given the problems this proposal is causing, it might not be a bad idea to have another RfC and give the respondents a clear choice. If another RfC is held, it's best not to do it on this low traffic page. Village Pump policy might be a good place. Additionally it needs to be advertised.I can't tell whether the RfC was posted at WP:Cent. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)