Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 12

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

10 year anniversary

Anyone interested in getting Wikipedia to FA status and then to be todays featured article for the 10 year anniversary on Jan 15, 2011? There is not much time, but I think if a bunch of good editors work hard for this, we could make it happen. Even if it is not the Wikipedia artile, we should find some other relevant article for the anniversary. Remember (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Raul has already made it clear that this is one of the few articles which will never be TFA; besides, we have a long-standing policy of never having self-referential articles on the main page (it's why Wikipedia Review was unceremoniously yanked out of DYK when it once crept in). – iridescent 19:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Not even for the 10 year anniversary. I feel like that is the one day that it would make sense to be on the main page. Oh well. Raul, is this still your view? Remember (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia as a TFA, no. I think it would confuse everyone. We do definitely need something special for the day, though. I'll have a look... wackywace 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no time. Realistically, an article of that scope is going to take weeks to rewrite and polish, then there's the review process, and I would anticipate an insane FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, I tried. Remember (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Other ideas

So I did some poking around to try and figure out if there were any other appropriate currently existing FA for the 10 year anniversay. Unfortunately, everything I came up with has its downsides. Here is what I found. Remember (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Truthiness - This seems like a nice way to honor the 10 year anniversary and shows that we don't take ourselves too seriously. Unfortunately, already been on the main page once, but I think this would merit an exception.
Encyclopædia Britannica - Already a FA, but it has been on the main page before. That was back in 2007 so maybe an exception can be made in this case. Not sure if it would be seen as insulting to Britinica though.
The Guardian of Education - well, the name is nice, but it really doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia or encyclopedias, but as I said, I like the name. It also has already been on the main page.
Anekantavada - philosophical idea that the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. But has already been on the main page.
The Age of Reason - again, I like the name of the title, but it has already been featured on the main page.
Philosophy of mind - somewhat related but also already been on the main page.

Thoughts? Remember (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Every single one of the examples you give has already been TFA, and is thus ineligible; we never run any item in any section of the main page twice, and this certainly isn't an important enough event to warrant making an exception; aside from a few hundred people involved in Wikipedia itself, nobody in the broader world will either know or care about this anniversary. (Which in any case, is rather tenuous; Wikipedia budded gradually from Bomis, and didn't have a "start date" as such. If any date has a claim to be the 10th anniversary, it's March 9, 2000—when Nupedia went live—and the anniversary of that has already passed.) – iridescent 20:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia was formally launched January 15, 2001. A little under a month until that date. What was Raul's objection to use of Wikipedia as the TFA? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Iridescent, obviously you and I are of different opinions. It appears to me that you think that the ten year anniversary of the official launch date is a not very important event and therefore doesn't deserve a special recognition in any real way on the main page, whereas I feel that it is an important event for wikipedia and we should try to celebrate it in a nice fun way by recognizing some FA that is related to the project in some way on the main page. I doubt there is anything we can do to bridge this gap, but I assume if someone was to come up with a FA that had not been shown on the main page before, you would not have an objection, correct? I too would prefer to have an FA that has not been on the main page before that has some relevance to this project, but I am not sure that is going to be possible. If that is the case, I would prefer to do something notable for wikipedia rather than just have a random video game character honored on that day. Remember (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Where is it written that TFAs can never repeat? I honestly couldn't find it. DC T•C 04:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen it in writing either. I know featured pictures can be featured on the main page multiple times. If we're discussing articles that have already been TFAs, I'll suggest The Million Dollar Homepage and PowerBook 100 as ideas. wackywace 16:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It is under "Adding Requests" over on the project page, first sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas at all?

so does anyone have any other ideas for the 10 year anniversary? Unless we break a rule and feature an article twice, there are no other ideas. Remember (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest running the best article on the most important subject we can find, just to demonstrate what Wikipedia can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
ok. Any suggestions on what that would be? Remember (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to make a suggestion. But surely people could go through the listings and see what they think is the most important subject of a FA which has not yet TFA'd.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at new promotions, what about Speed of light? Nice basic concept, well written or it wouldn't be there and sorta symbolic in a way ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Other ideas to run for the anniversary that have varying degrees of symbolism or innuendo about Wikipedia/information/encyclopedia: Wonder Stories, Sweet Track, Bring Us Together, Definition of a planet, or Press Gang. None of these have anything to do with Wikipedia at all, the titles just seemed thought provoking. --SkotyWATC 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we run 10 current FAs that have already been on the main page, chosen to highlight the range of WP: history, geography, science, biography, music, popular culture etc. Code can be used to produce a random display from the 10 (as was done with the Obama-McCain 2TFA day), and the TFA box can have an extra sentence saying what's going on today. I know this breaks two "rules" (no repeats, only 1 TFA per day) but the 10th anniversary seems a good time to IAR. BencherliteTalk 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! I'll have a look through WP:FA to find some important articles, but I think, if this is what we are going to do, Earth is definitely one I'd like to see included. wackywace 18:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, perhaps that should be cleared with Raul, who may have views on the question. Most likely does, in fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I like this idea a lot, but I agree with Wehwalt that we need to check with Raul to see what he is comfortable with doing. Remember (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Putting together an altogether different main page for a day or two is an interesting idea. I suggest removing everything but the featured content (keep TFP, TFA; remove: ITN, DYK, OTD, sister projects, languages).
Some ideas for selecting TFAs with some unusual features: Spoken articles [1], geographic coordinates [2], may even bring out a feature topic [3], Night of the Living Dead and link to the full film, FAs about or featuring a Featured Pictures, commentary about getting FA [4], collaborative effort [5]. — Dispenser 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Putting the best featured topic on the main page is actually a great idea... it'll highlight Wikipedia's strengths. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, what we could do on the 10th anniversary is omit a featured articles altogether and instead leave a message talking about the featured article process, its beginning, the highlights over the years, etc, and conclude the short blurb by leaving a link to the featured article category and to the former featured articles category to invite people to look at what we have done in the last 10 years. For an image to be used in such a blurb, we could find one of those speech balloons or put a photo of Wikipe-tan up. In this manner, we can include all featured articles over the years - including those that once held the FA-class assessment but no longer do - which would provide a richer look at what we have had up over the years. As a side note, we could do in theory do the same thing for all the sections save for possibly the current events section. Submitted for consideration, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea but wonder if time would be too short to draft a FA-quality-looking essay like that. There would have to be a peage for the reader to go to behind the blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a letter from Raul (and Sandy?) about the most unusual featured articles? It would be good for the public to hear from someone other than Jimbo. The reason I harp on odd features is that most of our readers 1) come to our site through Google, 2) unaware that we are user driven community, and 3) unaware that there are tasks beside editing and writing. — Dispenser 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No Wikipe-tan, period. Raul wouldn't go for it, I wouldn't, and our user base would probably revolt. :p Wehwalt, wasn't there a Featured Content Dispatch on the history of the FA process a little bit ago? Why don't we pull that out, add the necessary updates, and see if that would work? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's the dispatch. --SkotyWATC 16:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this (obviously with five different articles, not all the same)? wackywace 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion here is very interesting, but I'd like a wider range of opinions. I've started a thread at Talk:Main_Page#10th_Anniversary_FA. Raul654 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to use...

I am not too familiar with the nomination process, and I realize there are special events coming up that should be recognized with appropriate TFAs, but I saw a request for TFA suggestions recently on the Main Page talk page so I'm simply offering use of the only FA article I have generated to date: Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall. If format submission is required, I could find time for it soon. Nothing particularly special or noteworthy about the article as far as dates are concerned, but if you need suggestions I am offering one! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to submit it on the project page. Is there a specific date you'd like to see it run on? I would be happy to work up a blurb for you, that you could cut and paste and use for your nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow up! No specific date request. I will take a closer look at the nomination process. --Another Believer (Talk) 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone should install User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js

Hi all. Just dropping by to suggest that editors install the above script to their Monobook/Vector skin as appropriate. What is does is to highlight links to redirect pages, pages that are up for deletion and disambiguation pages by changing the colour of the displayed links from the standard blue. The last one is most useful, it identifies where a link does not go to the intended target and should be fixed before going up on the Main Page. I've sometimes caught these appearing on the main page and had to submit corrections at WP:ERRORS, this will help shortcut the process. I will be suggesting this to all editors involved in the FA and Main Page content processes. Regards. Zunaid 08:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia Day...

Now what do we have that's not been on the main page that's undeniably aussie....Silverchair, Powderfinger.... Telopea speciosissima...any banksia (there are several) .....any of the currawongs,· Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, · Cockatoo · Willie Wagtail · Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo ...Raul, if you're watching, just choose something Aussie. I have no idea waht looks most aussie to an O/S editor...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree there should be an article themed to a country on the national day ... every year, every English-speaking country. BTW, I'm hoping Raul will save 1975 Australian constitutional crisis for the funeral of whichever one of Whitlam or Fraser goes first.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, or maybe get King-Byng Affair up to FA and pressure Raul into another dual TFA on the anniversary of the signing of the Statute of Westminster.  :) Resolute 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If it must be, nothing social political or ethnic. Invasion Day is a politicised statement in Australia. But wiki oughtn't commemorate nationality anyway. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
None of the bio articles are political...could try to have something more topical for next year. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • if it absolutely must be Australian themed, which I obviously contest, physical geography, flaura or fauna would be preferable. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • it doesnt absolutely must be anything, but typically 4th July has a US theme. Cas just asked if Raul would pick a topic that has an Australian theme but because of the nature of the topics the ones mentioned dont have any date related claims to get the opportunity to request main page, some of those article Cas highlightd where promted over two years ago. Wikipedia relies solely on vlunteers I see nothing wrong in anyone requesting dates which are nationally significant having an article which is relevant to the country whether its 14th March, 4th July, 26th January. Gnangarra 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Once an article has been the Featured Article it can be the FA again?!?

Once an article has been the Featured Article it can never be the FA again?!? Even years later? That's insane. Who decided this? Why do they get to decide? Why is information like that so IMPOSSIBLE to find before you go to the trouble to editing and posting a nomination?-- Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the instructions is "The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article". It's hardly "IMPOSSIBLE to find". And no, there's no possibility that this policy will change. – iridescent 19:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Raul and I have also replied on Eric's talk page, FWIW, where he posted the same question. BencherliteTalk 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the rule as it stands, but when it comes to Wikipeida, "never say never". I am not at all opposed to relaxing that rule if a special situation arises, but I don't see the 100th anniversary of the birth of a former president to be that special. Resolute 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It happened with Barack Obama, but in that case the article had changed dramatically (first featured in 2004, then alongside John McCain on Election Day 2008.) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberta

Although I am not opposed to articles about my home province being featured on the home page, I should note that articles related to Alberta are scheduled to be featured twice in a row, on February 10 & 11. 117Avenue (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

MAOR CANADACRUFT. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
PS - in all seriousness, I did that intentionally because I find it amusing, but I don't really consider Albertosaurus to be Canadian in any meaningful way. Raul654 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll crank up the mill for some more Diefenbaker articles, then. Been thinking of doing one on his legal career ... (although he was from Saskatchewan)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite amusing :) 117Avenue (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm suggesting anything, but I just felt like linking a few 'randomly' selected featured articles here. Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, Albert Bridge, London, Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield, Tropical Storm Alberto (2006). --Noren (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Temple temple temple

Temple of Eshmun, The Temple at Thatch, and Temple Israel were scheduled on consecutive days, so the casual reader can see the repetition just by looking on the main page. The slew of articles beginning with L in December was one thing, but I really don't think whole words should repeat like this. A. Parrot (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you want this page to do about it? I don't think that TFAR !voted for any such sequence; in the absence of suggestions (and this page has not been very active in the last month or more), Raul has to pick them himself, and a bit of "spot the sequence" isn't going to hurt anyone. BencherliteTalk 07:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Raul had done a number of short sequences like that since about November. I see no harm in them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed the pattern and thought it strange, especially because it doesn't seem to connect to anything (i.e. National Temple Month!). But why is it that every concern brought to the attention of the Wikipedia community seems to be met with an attitude of "if you don't like it, you shoulda done X"? Wikipedia may be largely populated by tech-savvy devotees, but it's still an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Instead of trying to get everyone to learn more about Wikipedia, why not try to make Wikipedia more accessible to everyone? I.e. how does one even get to this page? Aside from searching for it, the fastest way I can tell is to open the 'Discussion' tab of the Main Page (a tab some people don't even know exists), find the Main Page toolbox, and find the appropriate link for suggestions. If there's a faster way, I don't know about it and I'm probably not the only one. Perhaps that's the reason there hasn't been much activity here. Why isn't this page linked at the bottom of the Featured Article section? And if there's a more appropriate place to put this critique, I'm sorry, but it wasn't obvious. Warthomp (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I quite like to see little thematic similarities in otherwise unrelated articles. This example reminds me a bit of a question from the Round Britain Quiz! Anyway, the TFAR page is linked from the general Featured Article Candidates page and Today's Featured Article pages, so arguably is easy enough to find for editors who have something to do with the process. Bob talk 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just what I'm saying... it's a closed loop. The only people who know how to find the pages to get involved in the process are people who are already involved in the process. Doesn't that seem like a problem for the general editors? Warthomp (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Every couple days, there's a new discussion on talk:Main page about some aspect of the day's featured article. It's not like they're hard to find - I count 3 as I write this. [1][2][3]. Anyone who pays even casual attention to that page should have no difficulty deducing where to go and who to chat with about FA-related things. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, it's your page. It just seems to me that the re-active system of: wait for someone to question the FA, link them to this page, hope other people see it, isn't quite as efficient as trying to make people aware before questions come up. Just my feedback, take it or leave it. Warthomp (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be easier if Recently featured was linked instead of the obtuse archive: "Recently featured: Article 1 – Article 1 – Article 1 \n By email – More featured articles...". I have myself search for month's TFA list on the front page and a blogger used the Wayback Machine instead. — Dispenser 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to reply, but I think it would be a mistake to add a link on the front page, as I suspect it would lead to lots of well-meaning, but fruitless nominations of non-FA articles. You know the sort of thing: "today is Valentine's Day, so why isn't that today's featured article?" and so forth. There are links from the main page talk, TFA pages and the FAC page, so I imagine if somebody is that bothered, it's not difficult to find. Bob talk 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I was amused by this and didn't see any harm. Too bad Temple University, Temple (anatomy), and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom are not FA. --Noren (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

24 February 2011

This date sees the 300th anniversary of the premiere, in London, of Handel's opera Rinaldo. The Rinaldo article is presently start-class, but I have undertaken to try to expand and improve it so that it might become featured before that date and reach the front page on its tercentenary. Time is short, and there's no guarantee that I can achieve this, but if I can get the article to FAC by around 10 February, there's a chance. In any event, can this date be held, at least until it is obvious that Rinaldo is not going to make it? Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that notwithstanding my note, two editors have since put up alternative TFA nominations for 24 February. I have no prior or overriding rights to this date, and maybe their claims for it are better than mine – who can tell? – but it would have been polite to let me know, considering I am busting my balls on behalf of Rinaldo against a rapidly-ticking clock. I am not yet in a position to put in a counternomination, for the reasons given above, but perhaps Raul will refrain from allocating the date until Rinaldo has had a chance at FAC. but I'll wait and see. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if they did not read the note here. I know I didn't see it until now. I think I should withdraw my "non-specific" request because in the event that Raul puts it on the main page before Feb 24, you would also get negative points for another opera being in close proximity. I have no particular interest in seeing mine on the main page right now—I just saw the empty slot. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I imagine they did not see my note. Personally, I always glance at the list of potential upcoming requests when I am considering a date. It is kind of you to consider withdrawing your own opera request, but this need only be till we know Rinaldo's fate. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-articles?

Since the anniversary I was wondering if there could be a day in the month for non-FAs like FL/FT/FSs. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

24 March 2011

My first attempt at a TFA nom, so bear with me. :) I'd like to nominate Joseph Barbera whose 100th birthday is on March 24, 2011. The article appears to earn 10 total points:

  • 2 points: Promoted 2 or more years ago (29 September 2008)
  • 6 points: Centennial Anniversary (birthday)
  • 2 points: Widely covered. (cartoon artist, director, producer, etc)

I've placed the article in the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending list, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Dreadstar ☥ 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the points are good, but defer to Wehwalt who follows points more closely. This clause in the instructions applies to nominations with five or more points:
  • History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and to allow other articles their chance, so you can place it on the page any time after March 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, that's great information; I'll do just that! Dreadstar ☥ 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rule 2 of Nonspecific date article

I found myself having difficulty with rule 2 of "Nonspecific date article"; after reading it 3 times and pondering over it, I figure I got the main gist. I suggest rewording it from:

For purposes of similarity and main page representation, the article will be deemed nominated for the first seven days with no scheduled TFA, with points fixed (they will not change) as of the first date of that period. If the Director does not schedule the proposed article within this timeframe, it will be deemed rejected, and may be replaced by any eligible article, regardless of points. It may also be removed for having a majority of oppose votes (with at least five votes) 48 hours after nomination.

to

The article's targeted dates are the first seven days without scheduled articles after its nomination. Points based on similarity and main page representation are calculated as if the article's target is the first unscheduled day. If the article is not selected as a TFA by the seventh unscheduled day, it will be deemed rejected and may be replaced by any eligible article, regardless of points. It may also be removed for having a majority (by at least five) of oppose votes 48 hours after nomination.

Is that a clearer presentation of the idea behind rule 2? Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, since there is no opposition to this,  Done.[4] Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads up on FL discussion

Proposal brewing to put Featured Lists on mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

International Women's Day

In case German women's national football team gets dropped due to its low point value, some possible replacements for March 8 include: Olivia Manning, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, and Gwen Stefani. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani would be 4 points. 2 for promoted over 2 years ago, and 2 for widely covered. I believe that's the highest point total of the articles listed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom would also score 4 points in the same manner as Gwen Stefani. However, if a sports related article is desired, may I suggest Masako Katsura, Sandra Morgan, or Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race over the German women's squad. --SkotyWATC 04:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The main reasons I initially chose German women's national football team was because it was an article about "women" rather than a single woman (although this isn't really an important distinction), and it happened to be the first FA that I found that could be used for the holiday. I believe Masako Katsura was featured on the main page recently, but the other suggestions sound good. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
On the "not a specific person" theme, I think Maria sounds an excellent idea. Shimgray | talk | 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I also like Maria - I'm not sure of the points, but it would likely be necessary for Kaldari to withdraw his nomination and add Maria himself, if Maria is to run. The football team can easily be scheduled later, likely with lots of support. Smallbones (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any rule or proper etiquette for modifying someone elses nomination? I think it's clear that Kaldari just wanted to nominate an article covering a woman or group of women for this day and is not particularly attached to the one nominated. We've identified two (Gwen Stefani and Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom) that have a higher point total, but it appears that Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman is a preferred choice. Given that I'm planning on nominating a soccer (football) related article for March 19 and that the German women's national football team has been deducted 2 points because a soccer article ran on Feb 15, I think a change would be appropriate. I'm happy to adjust the nom, but I don't want to step on any toes. --SkotyWATC 10:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't change someone else's nomination just because you think he wouldn't mind unless he's actually said he wouldn't mind. You can make a nomination yourself, according to the rules, and replace the next to be replaced, if the article has sufficient points.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd support Maria. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
With all the (misplaced or not) media emphasis these days on women and Wikipedia, I suspect Maria might be a better choice, at least in terms of feeding the media representations of this alleged gender issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I created the original nomination. Please go ahead and replace it with Maria. Due to the 1.17 MediaWiki release I'm a bit busy at the moment, otherwise I would replace it myself. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A closing comment for the talk page archives... In follow up to Kaldari's comments, I switched the nomination to Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman based on the input from this discussion. It then received 8 supporting votes and was scheduled to appear on March 8, International Women's Day. Thanks to all for your input. --SkotyWATC 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Widely covered

How can I tell how many languages have versions of an article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Count the interwikis, either in the sidebar at the bottom left of the article, or in edit mode at the bottom of the article near the categories. BencherliteTalk 06:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Man this is a wierd measurement for main page viability. CM Punk has 28 interwikis easily qualifying and twice as many as Inauguration of Barack Obama and Millennium Park, Chicago's second largest tourist attraction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It was one of a number of suggestions made, and it was the one which appealed to Raul. At least it can be objectively measured. Not every plus/minus has to measure the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

SlimVirgin, I mean this respectfully, but could you say what exactly you're accusing me of?

I've been re-writing the article on Russell Miller's biography of Hubbard and adding academic sources in a number of related articles such as Fair Game (Scientology) and List of Scientology Security Checks. I've done a block of work improving sourcing in the LRH article and it should surprise no-one that I was planning to rewrite it. Nor should it surprise anyone that I was watching the article and took serious time to review the new version as soon as it appeared. I was impressed with its quality, relieved that I can concentrate on other articles, but - forgive this weakness - disappointed that I was going to miss out on the wiki-glory. Helatrobus used the article Talk to invite other editors to take it on for review, and was a new editor so, I expect, not familiar with WP's review process. I would not have submitted the article to FAC if I had not had confidence in it as a professional-quality piece of work. If I thought I could have done better myself, you can bet I would have re-written it.

Editors with widely varying perspectives on the subject matter agree that the article is neutral and well-written. Does Wikipedia punish people who bring professional quality to a hotly-disputed area, because we don't know their real identity? That seems absolutely extraordinary. I have my own theories about why a highly skilled writer would dump an article into Wikipedia. I keep them to myself because they are not relevant to 1) whether the article is professional quality, and 2) whether it belongs on the main page on March 13th. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Having read the discussion on your Talk page, I think I have a better idea where you're coming from. It's not that you're implying something like sockpuppetry (as GamerPro64 and maybe others might have thought you meant) but that a nasty surprise might be waiting such as a copyright violation from a existing source. A similar concern was raised by Laser Brain early on in the FA candidacy. Here I have to confess a nerdy obsession with the sources in this area, and others who have reviewed the article are at least as familiar with them as I. The article has had thorough review: of the two opposes, one was obviously unactionable, and the other was on the grounds of length, which was addressed and brought into accordance with the guideline. I still don't understand your observation that the principal author wrote another article which was deleted. This doesn't seem to bear on the quality of the article of its relevance to March 13th. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak for SV obviously, but I imagine one of the concerns might be whether Helatrobus is the author of the unreleased book, and whether this is some kind of experiment in book promotion. The thought had occurred to me as well, but in the end I decided to just let the FAC run its course. I treated it like any other nomination, and treated the request for timely promotion like I do anyone else's (namely, I would never rush a nomination but the request might influence my decision about what day to go through FAC). I'm glad there is a way forward for topics like this—highly visible topics are often too controversial or unstable to have any chance of passing FAC. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That was basically it, Andy. The main page article can attract up to 100,000 readers, and we have to be careful what we place on it. A lot of the FAC process depends on trust, because reviewers can't be experts in every topic that comes to them. That trust depends on the contributions of the nominator: we get to know each other's work, we know what our strengths and weaknesses are. When an entirely new account arrives with a ready-made article—or a 10,000-word extension of an existing one, which must have taken him an age to write—the usual basis for trust is absent. So how do we judge it? And it raises the question of why write it offline, then insert it in one go. It just seems an odd thing to do.
I was concerned about his advance knowledge of the new Scientology book, and his creation of an article about it. Is he connected to the author or publisher? Is this a publicity thing to increase book sales? Has he seen the book and copied some of it? We have no way of knowing. (By the way, I've had to create this test account because I'm having technical problems with my usual one; something in my preferences is causing a problem.) SlimVirgin test account (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I just want to add that I can sympathize with Martin. My first noteworthy edit was prepared offline, and completely overhauled the Ring-tailed Lemur article, which immediately raised a lot of questions at WP:PRIMATES about who this new guy was. Admittedly, I didn't rush off and submit it for FAC and then TFA, although it eventually became my first FA. But with that said, I also share SV's and Andy's concern about the possibility of a publicity stunt. We should assume good faith, but when it comes to the main page some questions are healthy, so please don't take too much offense. Trust is something earned. Putting something on the main page under Today's Featured Article reflects strongly on Wikipedia's image, and if our trust were to prove to be misplaced, the consequences could be very bad for Wikipedia. Therefore I feel that it's only fair that SV raise this concern. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me put SlimVirgin's mind at ease. I have no connection whatsoever with the forthcoming book. I'm not an author, a publisher or in any other way a contributor to it. I knew from the advance publicity on it that it covers the biography of L. Ron Hubbard, so I thought it would be worth a mention and a link from the section of the L. Ron Hubbard article that deals with biographies. That resulted in a red link, as Wikipedia did not at that point have an article on the book. To fill in the red link, I used the advance publicity to create a stub article on the book. The L. Ron Hubbard article that I wrote makes no use of any content from the book, which I don't have and haven't read. That is all there is to it. I never thought that it would raise all this concern! Helatrobus (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that assurance. Can you also say whether you've edited Wikipedia with another account, and if so, are you willing to let some people know what it was, if only by e-mail? SlimVirgin test account (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what other people have said about identity not being relevant here, so I do not intend to discuss that with you. I hope that I have cleared up the confusion about why I created that stub article (which has since been deleted, so any concern about a "publicity stunt" is misplaced). I have given you the assurance and explanation you were asking for, so perhaps you could withdraw your opposition as it was clearly based on a misunderstanding? Helatrobus (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're a returning editor—which is what your silence about that implies—I think you do need to say who you are if you want the privilege of being on the main page with a contentious topic. It's a violation of SOCK for alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny, or to split up a contribution history that other editors might have a legitimate interest in looking at.
In the case of a contentious article, we need to see the history of the contributor, in case he's edited in that area before in a problematic way. Would you go to the London Times and insist they place an article from an entirely anonymous writer on their front page, with even the editor not allowed to know who it is? Wikipedia's front page gets a lot of hits, so these concerns aren't just process wonkery. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
SV ta, don't we focus on content, not contributors here? Why should we do otherwise here? (and that's as serious question, not a rhetorical one, I'm not certain what to think on this but am making some guesses I would rather not about what is being feared).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
What I'm arguing, I think, is that the content/contributor relationship is more nuanced. When someone takes a contentious article to FAC, you have their contribs to look at, you know their strengths and weaknesses. "Here's one from SV. So that means she's probably done this okay, but let's take an extra look at that, because we know she often does that irritating thing there."
But we're not experts on L. Ron Hubbard. It's therefore very tricky to find people able to check for balance and accuracy, especially a 16,000-word offering, which is a ton of work to review. So with this kind of FAC you're forced to fall back on trusting the contributor. But here we have a brand new account, who inserted the article in one go, and who won't say whether he's had a previous account. He asks for trust, but he won't return any. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

actually I don't think you can ban the L. Ron Hubbard article from the front page due to one edit that occured over a month ago because you are suspicious of the editor and have no other complaints about his edits. While we on the Scientology pages appreciate your concern, Scientology is one of the most scrutinized sections of Wikipeida, and so far the editors in that section have no problem with the edits. you are welcome to go through the banned and restricted user log which covers all the problem users the Scientology section has had since May 2009 and see if you can find a similar editing pattern (which is requried for sockpuppet investigations) or make the claim s/he is a single purpose account with an agenda to the arbcom.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, or Helatrobus could just answer SV's question about prior accounts. Honestly, if this was just a simple misunderstanding, a little truth can fix it. Good faith goes both ways. Why beat around the bush on this? You say that Scientology is "one of the most scrutinized sections" and yet we're jumping to put this article, which had a complete reset barely 1 month ago by a brand new editor, up on the main page. SV did a good job raising the warning flag based on some dubious facts she unearthed and instead of getting clear cut answers to some simple questions, the response is "trust me" or "I don't have to answer that." If there's nothing to hide, then just answer the question. --SkotyWATC 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it comes down to this. As members of the community, SV or anyone else can ask anything they want. However, they cannot insist that questions be answered or exact consequences. Raul is the only person who may do that. Editors are free, of course, to vote up or down on the community's recommendation at TFA/R. I will add that there have no great reports of mass conversions of people who read the article, though they do report a thirstiness for Coca Cola.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of pushiness about the whole thing. I don't like the idea of a IMHO dubious organization putting material on the front page - even if the material itself is FA quality. Especially if some fairly straightforward questions are not answered directly. Smallbones (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You've lost me, Smallbones. Organization?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
What organization? I am not a member of any organization related to the subject of the article, pro or con, and I have not written the article for any third party – it has entirely been a personal project. The original version of the article was not very good. I wrote the current version in about four weeks in January this year, working offline because I don't like writing in a browser window (I prefer a proper word processor). That was entirely at my initiative, and I had no assistance from any other person in writing the article. Nobody other than me read or edited it before I posted it. Helatrobus (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is more to life than what SV calls "policy wonkery". In particular, contributors may not be aware that the Church of Scientology has a well-deserved reputation for harassing authors (see Operation Freakout for an example). Editing under a pseudonym is a matter of personal safety. SV is reading too much into my silence - I am simply unwilling to be drawn into any discussion concerning identity because that infringes my privacy, invites speculation and puts my personal safety at risk. It is frankly unpleasant to be faced with what amounts to a demand to surrender privacy or face a no vote on the article.

I do not believe the argument about trust is valid. There is no need to trust me and I do not ask for anyone's trust. Virtually every sentence in the article is referenced. Many of the references are online or otherwise easily accessible and so can be checked readily. The article has not got to where it is through blind trust. What SV calls "a ton of work to review" has already been done. It was nominated for featured article status by an editor with expertise in the topic area, who reviewed it in detail himself and made many changes. A group of independent reviewers has passed the article, after a lengthy review and many more changes, and has certified that it meets all the criteria for featured status. If you say that you cannot trust the article, you are also saying that you cannot trust any of the featured article reviewers or the nominator. You are in effect saying that it should not be a featured article in the first place, that all of the reviewers got it wrong and that you have no confidence in the nominator's statement that he has "confidence in it as a professional-quality piece of work". Wehwalt is right - this should be about content, not contributors. No content issues have been identified - only vague insinuations and misunderstandings.

Incidentally, since I rewrote the article it has already been read over 100,000 times [5]. That's a lot of Coca-Cola! Helatrobus (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire for privacy when writing about these issues. I've written about the LaRouche movement and I've been attacked by them offwiki because of it. But no one's arguing you shouldn't edit, and no one's arguing you can't submit FAs. It's just a bit much to request main page access in these circumstances. Would you at least be willing to tell the FA director and delegates what your main account is or was? SlimVirgin test account (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this would be where I get up and say "Your Honor, I object. Assumes a fact not in evidence." That's still an extraordinary thing to ask, with no actual reason. Just unstated suspicion. If anyone is to ask that, it should be Raul, and he should do it privately. SV, you and I and the next guy and yes, even the delegates when they participate here form a group which advises Raul in a way he has asked for, through a vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Helatrobus implied that he was not a new editor. But if that's wrong, he could clarify that with the director and delegates, or other people of his choosing. The usual thing is to let ArbCom know if a new account is created, particularly one that might cross the streams in a contentious article. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we let Raul handle it in his own way, then? The delegates don't enter into it, this is within the jurisdiction of neither FAC nor FAR and the delegates only perform limited functions dealing with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on whether this should or should not be done (nor whether he is or is not a sock), but another way around this is Helatrobus could give the prior account name to a trusted admin, who would confirm here that the account left in good standing. I'd be willing to do this, if you could trust me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment The Book "Inside Scientology" has generated interest in Anti-Scientology and NRM scholarship circles. No reason to assume the author is doing promo work here. Its well known the books is coming out it just hasnt generated alot of third party coverage yet. I scrutinized the entire article twice and did a fair bit of nitpicking on much of the substance in the article in the FA review. Its good material. This guy who ever he is... he has Cirt, Coffeepusher Jayen466, and myself all agreeing that it is NPOV... thats damn rare in the Scientology topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to totally agree with RA on this one. I can not think of a single edit of this size making it on a Scientology article without some major controversy ensuing. Can someone create a "got everyone on the scientology pages to agree on something" barnstar and give it to the only qualified candidate in the history of wikipedia?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit break

Perhaps I feel strongly about this because on my first FAC as editor with the greatest number of edits to the article, I and my conoms were attacked for POV. My second, on a racially charged incident, had a rocky FAC. My third, the first FA on a member of the Nazi Party, sailed through. Go figure, but perhaps I feel I've stood in Helatrobus's shoes.

If I get this straight, the idea is this: That because Helatrobus edited the L. Ron Hubbard article, and brought a controversial article to FA, he is per se a suspicious character because he is a relatively new editor and composed the article offline. Accordingly, editors with no official standing feel free to call upon him to out himself to someone else with no official standing (and an admin has no more standing than the next guy, this is not included in our pay grade). The article has, as he has pointed out, attracted 100K plus page views without anyone calling him out on distortions of facts, the editors of undoubted standing working in the Scientology area have passed it as kosher, and it passed FA if not comfortably, at least credibly and no one pounded on Laser Brain's door in utter rage at the promotion. We can certainly vote up or down at TFA/R (am I cynical in saying that perhaps this discussion started when it became clear the vote would be to favor the article?) but to do more than that is an unwarranted erosion on the good faith which we traditionally extended here, and which does not seem to have been extended in this case.

I've worked in a number of areas where POV can be changed by the movement of a word, not even deleting it. I would expect the editors who work in the Scientology area to be able to detect that; there have been surely many attempts to be POV on either side. They say the article's kosher. Helatrobus has reasonably engaged here, and I cannot say that his refusal to discuss the socking matter with SV ta is unwarranted. After all, privacy aside, SV ta has no official standing, and isn't asking this question to help him. She hopes to mine information from contributor histories which might show that Helatrobus has displayed a position on the matters at issue, or hopes the account is blocked, and defeat this article's placement on the main page, though what the two things have to do with each other I can't say, after all, SV, would having a position on the I-P conflict mean you can't do an article on the death of a Palestinian boy? Just sayin'. Or should it make any difference what your position is?

The bottom line is, we judge content, not contributors. The Hubbard article fulfils all requirements for TFA, it presently has community endorsement by majority vote, its point value makes it most unlikely it will be knocked off the page, and that leaves it up to Raul to take action, if he so desires, as he sees fit. For anyone else to demand information as the price of main page is unwarranted and, forgive me, presumptuous.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wehwalt here. As someone who was accused of being a sockpuppet based on my first edit as a registered user, I know it is very possible to edit as an IP and just observe and gain experience, and also that experience editing other websites (and wikis) can carry over here pretty easily. While I can understand SV's being suspicous, the article has passed the review process and is vouched for by editors who know a lot about Scientology.
WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, and to me the best way to be civil is to assume good faith. Looking at that page, the "in a nutshell" summary says "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." and "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." Seems to me that both those are very applicable here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
My sole purpose in writing this article was to produce the best possible overview, using the highest quality sources, of this significant historical figure in time for the March 13 centenary. I am sorry that my doing so has produced such controversy here. I have achieved what I set out to do, so I will now withdraw from this discussion and from editing more generally so that the temperature here has a chance to go down a bit. Helatrobus (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged! Please. You are welcome as an editor and a contributor, and I also point out that withdrawing could add to the perception that has been hinted at that you are here to get LRH on main page for nefarious purposes, and will lose interest in WP once mission accomplished.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(pre-Helatrobus edit conflict)

I don't want to disagree with the above 2 editors, but the writing of the article together with the FA and TFAR all looks very much arranged to me. "Clear evidence" - I think the chance that a first time editor could put together an article and have it go through FA within a month to arrive just in time for an anniversary on TFA is essentially zero. This is not clear evidence of a policy violation, but it is clear evidence of something going on that has not been fully explained. If the author does not wish to explain the questions raised here, I'd hope that he can explain them to an administrator - and I'll suggest Raul. The questions the situation raises in my mind (some answered above) are: Is Helatrobus a paid editor? Is s/he a professional writer, and if so why publish the article here? What connections does he have with any groups pro or con on the Church of Scientology? Was the article discussed/encouraged by or with any other Wikipedia editor or any (pro or con) Scientolgy related organization before being added? Did the birthday affect the timing of the addition?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the answers-omissions-suggestions above suggest that Helatrobus is a professional writer who put a lot of work into the article before submitting it here, but has never edited Wikipedia under another user name. S/he is not a paid editor and not related pro or con in any way to the Church of Scientology. It all just kinda happened a couple of months before the birthday. I think a lot of folks who are not especially suspicious might say that this doesn't entirely add up. There seems to be something missing, but if Helatrobus can explain the above to Raul, I'd certainly withdraw my oppose. Smallbones (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't vet editors before their articles can appear on the main page. That sets an dangerous precedent that isn't followed anywhere else on Wikipedia. We're not Citizendium. Like Wehwalt, I've been through this meat grinder before. When I wrote my first FA, I was accused during both the FAC process and then on main page day (which I did not request) of being a shill for the organization or having some ulterior motive. Folks came out of the woodwork and declared the end of Wikipedia as we know it because we had an article about a corporation on the main page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think questions of paid editing, conflicts of interest, and even of general miracles happening on this page are reasonable questions to ask about TFA requests. TFA, after all, has a very wide reach and could be commercially valuable if we didn't vet this type of thing. All I'm saying is that if questions can't be answered here, then somebody like Raul should look into them. Smallbones (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that the feat of getting a FA passed by such a new editor to en.wiki is unusual. However, it is not a miracle, and the FAC was, as you might expect, messy. With the rest, we seem to be back to either the promote the bastard religion for nefarious purposes, or possibly the subliminal Coca-Cola. With no evidence for same. And while this article enjoys nice support at the project page, there is no indication of meatpuppetry, and presumably, if this was being done to promote Elron because he is our god or whatever Scientologists believe, they wouldn't be able to keep their money-picking hands out of the support column.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch's quote is aplicable, though not the way s/he intended it: "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." The problem here is we only have a limited number of actions by this editor to review. Usually, there's more history and therefore more evidence of the editors motives. This is rarely a concern at FAC because editors usually touch a number of things before they decide to put effort into an FA. That is not the case here. Indeed this editors third edit ever was a goliath size edit which 2 days later was nominated for FA. To be clear, the only thing I care about here is the "editors' actions." I feel that these extreme circumstances warrant an explanation before we go tossing this work up on the main page of the 5th most popular site on the internet. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that bad faith has been assumed with SV's questions. Furthermore, to assume that SV isn't trying to be helpful and is intent on "mining" this editors history is unfounded. What she's looking for (or at least what I'd looking for) is more of this editor's actions to review and expectedly line up with the assurances being offered here. SV's questions have always been based on the "editors' actions" and have never come across as personal attacks (I say as a neutral observer). The absence of genuine answers is what's bothered me (and forced me to not be neutral on this any more). --SkotyWATC 17:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting use of words, but I'd point out to you that almost everything we do here involves an edit, therefore I am not sure that your interpretation of "editor's actions" governs. The thing is, we're just kibbitzers. We know little about scientology. Those who do have given this article a clean bill of health. I guess it is possible that the editor is an evil genius who fooled all of them all the time, as well as the 100,000 people who have looked at the article recently and that the article contains some deeply hidden POV. Possible. And I guess it is possible I'll be in next year's Olympic 100 metre dash. Perhaps I need to be vetted for my FA on a Nazi, who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well let's not get carried away. I think we can all agree that a new editor writing an FA on his third edit is much more than unusual, it certainly is a record that will never be surpassed (more than twice). It may not be as improbable as Wehwalt winning the Olympic 100 meter dash, but it is up there with Wehwalt running the race. I hope folks can all agree that this unusual event related to a controversial topic can raise some good-faith questions. And I think we can all agree that Raul should take care of any questions that he has. If we all agree on these things, it's just a half-step to all of us agreeing to throw the ball into Raul's court (to mix my sports analogies). Does anybody object to trusting Raul with this - whichever way he may go? Smallbones (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is his call regardless, so I guess we can leave it at that and avoid harsh feelings arising on a matter where we obviously disagree deeply! As for the Olympics, well, we'll deal with that later.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Having a thorough discussion before putting an article with a history such as this one's on the main page is a good idea; jumping on SlimVirgin for raising the concerns is a bad idea. Raul will sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's been civil disagreement on this, which we are settlng. I'm uncertain that terms such as "jumping on" advance that cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope I've been civil. It really disturbed me to disagree with editors such as Wehwalt and Ruhrfisch. If we hadn't had this discussion now, it would be worse when the same discussion comes up later (e.g. on March 13). Minor choices in words, such as "jumping on" can be taken in ways not intended by the author, which goes for the entire discussion. Thanks for your understanding. Smallbones (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"Jumping on" reflected absolutely nothing except that I'm about to jump on the ski slopes and read the discussion quickly, saw SV had raised legit concerns. Honestly, folks, chill-- point was, good that the discussion happened, good that SV raised it, no offense or finger pointing intended, Raul will sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think respectful disagreements, such as those here, are good. If we always agree on stuff, there will be accusations of cabalism. Raul scheduled an article for the 10th a couple of hours ago, so he has likely had the benefit of this discussion, and unless there are fresh points, suggest we sit back and watch him earn the big bucks!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I have an article on the musical theatre at FAC, should I extend to Sandy a common expression of good luck in the theatre as she ventures upon those ski slopes?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I came here to see if anyone had any other ideas for the TFA for April Fools (or other ideas for the Quehanna blurb) and saw this and commented. I certainly mean no disrespect to any editor who has also participated in this discussion, and apologize to anyone I may have unintentionally offended. I agree that the circumstances are quite unusual, but I read much of the L Ron Hubbard article and thought it follows a NPOV and seems well sourced (I am not an expert on the man or Scientology, am not fond of either). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
[delayed by edit conflict] Thanks to all who have weighed in and I appreciate that we all share the same goal. I realise that these are somewhat unusual circumstances that merit some discussion. Responding in particular to Smallbones' "the writing of the article together with the FA and TFAR all looks very much arranged to me": Maybe I'm being touchy, but this seems to imply some wrongdoing on my part, but I can't tease out what it is I'm supposed to have done or how I've apparently done it. I have no power to force through an FA against the community: I could only submit it and see what happens, and was pleased with how it went. It should be no surprise at all that I had the article on my watchlist, or that I was watching the FAC and nominated for TFAR as soon as the article was promoted. That's clear evidence of eagerness.
SV ta seems to imply that the article has not been properly reviewed, and that we are not in a position to know the article quality (hence we need to know more about the author). In effect, this seems to question the competence of other editors, or at least our nerdiness about the subject. Some comments above read as if the article is hidden in a box, only to be revealed on the 13th. We already have it and have reviewed it. SV ta asks "Would you go to the London Times and insist they place an article from an entirely anonymous writer on their front page, with even the editor not allowed to know who it is?" No, but that's not a fair analogy for this situation. If an anonymous writer submits something of front-page importance to the Times, along with full references so that it can be checked, and those references do check out, and the text is not a copy or close paraphrase of an extant source, then I hope the editor would run it once it's been checked out by the staff.
Smallbones' "I don't like the idea of a IMHO dubious organization putting material on the front page" I just find baffling. I don't know what organisation is supposed to be doing this. I submitted the FAC and TFAR as myself, not for any organisation, and I'm not a member of any relevant organisation. I'm very open about who I am. Pardon me for being slow, but I don't even get how an organisation would benefit from a neutral article being on the main page. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Last word (I hope) - sorry for any offense given, and I can see where you could take offense. My only point intended was "Gee this looks odd and should be looked into" and was not aimed at you. The organizations I was referring to were the Church of Scientology and any opposing groups. The potential benefit to them would be along the lines "I don't care what you print about me, as long as you print something." Smallbones (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Reading comments in context, I realise I was probably being touchy. It's not a case of making accusations, just thinking aloud about possibilities, which people have every right to do. Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message at User talk:Helatrobus asking him to get in touch with me to privately discuss these issues, which I'd like to do before the Hubbard date request comes due. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

April 1

Is there going to be anything special on the main page for April Fools?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sifting through WP:FANMP, I came up with three ideas:
Not very good ideas, but maybe they'll inspire some better ones. --SkotyWATC 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch has already generated a blurb for Quehanna Wild Area; if anyone wants to propose other blurbs for discussion and Raul's consideration, please put them forward in userspace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything to be said for Tarrare (about a French solder who apparently ate live cats, snakes, lizards and puppies) and died in a fit of diarrhoea? There is also Pig-faced women, which speaks for itself. They both strike me as being good candidates for April 1st as they are already featured (but not TFA'd), definitely unusual and inherently so, rather than the slightly forced Quehanna Wild Area nomination. The introduction to Tarrare in particular would not even need any misleading details (unless that's supposed to be the point?) Bob talk 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

iLoo was just nominated. I assumed it was an electronic version of the card game loo. Boy was I surprised!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, if this one passes in time, this will definitely get my support! Bob talk 09:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be extremely strongly opposed to running Tarrare for laughs. He's a fascinating character and it would make a worthy 'normal' TFA, but the sole source of comedy value is his illness. Polyphagia isn't an odd quirk, it's a devastating disability (Lizzie Velasquez is the best-known contemporary sufferer); just because 18th-century bigotry forced the disabled to eke out a living as curiosities on display, doesn't mean we should do the same. Unless you'd be happy to play Tourette syndrome or Anorexia for laughs, you shouldn't even be considering this one either. (I don't know what you think is funny about death from diarrhoea, incidentally. It's a horrible way to die, and is one of the commonest causes of death—1.5 million deaths per annum among under-5s alone.) – iridescent 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I'd also say that iLoo is a long way from meeting the FA criteria as far as I'm concerned, so I wouldn't be holding my breath for it to pass FAC in time. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area

Found a newer blurb
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Copied from WT:FAC (from last year's discussion-- unfinished):

Quehanna Wild Area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania was established in 1955 as a habitat for the rare nuclear jet engine. Quehanna was also home to endangered radioactive species like Cobalt-60 and Strontium-90, and was the only wild area in the state with its own nuclear reactor and hot cells. The 48,000-acre (19,000 ha) wild area is Pennsylvania's largest; its great size allows visitors to track migrating tornados. The land was acquired by the state in the early 20th century as a preserve for tree stumps and ashes. Wapiti became locally extinct in the 19th century and were successfully reintroduced by the commonwealth in the 1920s; in 1992 Pennsylvania estrablished a small colony of prisoners in the wild area. (You get the idea)....
So what do you all think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania was established in 1955 as a habitat for the rare nuclear jet engine. Quehanna was also home to endangered radioactive species like Cobalt-60 and Strontium-90, and was the only wild area in the state with it own nuclear reactor and hot cells. The 48,000-acre (19,000 ha) wild area is Pennsylvania's largest; its great size allows visitors to track migrating tornados. The land was acquired by the state in the early 20th century as a preserve for tree stumps and ashes. Wapiti became locally extinct in the 19th century, but were successfully reintroduced by the commonwealth in the 1920s. By 1992, Pennsylvania had established a small colony of prisoners in the wild area.
The blurb can be tweaked and there is a free image of a robot that could be the blurb image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support—this should be this April Fools' TFA. –Grondemar 19:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Wapiti links to a disambiguation page, and I'm too lazy to research which one is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Not to worry, I'm sure Ruhrfisch will refine the blurb from last year's suggestion (I don't see Wapiti in the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "Wapiti" is another name for elk, but I don't think that would be appropriate here since the article is about Pennsylvania, where "elk" is much more commonly used.-RHM22 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It's April Fool's Day. That's the point lol... anyway, elk is the only real possibilty, so I went and fixed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm 99% sure I supported this last year, and I'll do the same this year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It does look like much of the blurb is meant to be humorous, so it does make sense to use "wapiti". At the very least, that will get some people interested enough to click onto that article and find out what it is. I believe it's a current FA by the way.-RHM22 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I am not a fan of misleading blurbs, but I'm in a minority; I was just pointing out the link to disambig page, which is disfavored.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but there really isn't any harm in it since it's been proposed for April Fools Day. All of the main page stuff is kind of misleading for April First, even the DYKs. They have things such as "that Ringo Starr was discovered in 1997 in a coral reef off the coast of Madagascar?", were "Ringo Starr" is the name for a fish or something.-RHM22 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the link should be this: Wapiti.-RHM22 (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The blurb is meant to be humorous and a bit misleading (for April Fools). I sometimes wonder if a more straightforward blurb would work here too - the details are fairly unbelievable: when the state bought the land it really was stumps and ashes for the most part (after decades of clear cutting and wildfires), then establishing an area to test nuclear jet engines in the wilds of Pennsylvania, allowing radioactive waste to be dumped into local streams, burying toxic waste in the wild area, where deer and bear dug it up, turning part of the failed industrial park into a prison camp, a tornado comes along and just misses the old nuclear reactor, plus if you add up the cleanup costs, I am sure the state sank way more into it than they ever made off it (turns out there are not that many nuclear scientists and engineers looking for work in the boonies). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the proposed lead is dreadful, absolutely and utterly dreadful. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - is there any way in which to improve it? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is from Kind Hearts and Coronets—it is not susceptible of any improvement whatsoever!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

March 24

I've recieved a copy of an email from the copyright holder to OTRS releasing copyright to this cropped image of Joseph Barbera. What needs to be done now? This is for tomorrow's TFA of Joseph Barbera. Dreadstar ☥ 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, it's been approved!! Dreadstar ☥ 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The article and blurb have now been updated. Raul654 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you! Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've temporarily uploaded the new file locally to ensure it's protected, for belt and braces (I know that sometimes Commons files used on our main page are protected on Commons, but given the late choice of image I wasn't sure whether that would kick in) and nominated the old file for semi-speedy deletion as an orphaned fair-use file. Is that all, folks? BencherliteTalk 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools FA

April 1 is fast approaching. If anyone intends to get an article up to FA status before April 1, you should probably start now. If anyone would like to post suggested blurbs, please do it in this thread. Raul654 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My vote is for the iLoo (assuming it passes FAC). Bob talk 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow..... wow. If that article passes, it's certainly a strong contender Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that article is full of win. For Boxing day, we should put a sub-stub up as TFA. (And Wikipedia's oldest articles at DYK!) :p Resolute 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Raul, there's also #Quehanna Wild Area above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I can write a more straightforward lede for Quehanna if needed, but I suspect it will be always a bridesmaid (and never a bride). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't be giving iLoo a bum rap (we might as well start the toilet humor now). BTW, I'm no relation to User:Smallman12q who is the major author. Smallbones (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer, already a GA, was mentioned some time ago at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article but no one seems to be working on it. It sounds like a good contender but needs some work. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing with the Quehanna Wild Area is it isn't an inherently amusing article and the blurb seems quite forced in its attempt to mislead - previous 1st April ones have been about fairly unusual subjects that's it's difficult to believe, like the alternative George Washington, etc. Quehanna Wild Area is a nice article, and Raul is always looking for blurbs to go in the "non specific" requests section, so I personally feel it would be better being featured as a "proper" blurb on another day. By contrast, something like the iLoo is pretty unbelievable, so the fact that it was a real proposal makes it a double bluff, as it were. Bob talk 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I tried to write the blurb in the style of previous April Fools TFAs like Ima Hogg and Museum of Bad Art. While I agree that the Quehanna article is not inherently funny, I do think much of it is pretty unbelievable. I can try to write a straight lead that emphasizes the unbelievable material if there is interest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the iLoo didn't pass FA. Having a look around Wikipedia:Unusual articles, there are a few possibilities there. This is one of Iridescent's unusual articles, so I don't know he'll want it going up or not, but seems to have promise as an inherently unusual/unbelievable article. Iridescent's article on the Pig-faced women has potential as well. I've posted a blurb below, but it's a little too long at the moment. Bob talk 10:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarrare (c. 1772 – 1798) was a French showman and soldier noted for his unusual eating habits. Able to eat vast amounts of meat, he was constantly hungry. He was banished from his home as a teenager and travelled France with a band of thieves and prostitutes before becoming the warm-up act to a travelling charlatan; he would swallow corks, stones, live animals and whole apples. He took this act to Paris where he worked as a street performer. On the outbreak of war Tarrare joined the French Revolutionary Army. He became the subject of medical experiments to test his eating capacity and ate a meal intended for 15 people in a single sitting, live cats, snakes, lizards and puppies, and a whole eel without chewing. General Alexandre de Beauharnais decided to put Tarrare's abilities to use. He was employed as a courier by the French army, with the intention that he would swallow documents, pass through enemy lines, and recover them from his stool once safely at his destination. Unfortunately, he was unable to speak German, and on his first mission was captured by Prussian forces. Chastened by this experience, he submitted himself to hospital in an attempt to cure his appetite. The procedures failed. After falling under suspicion of eating a toddler he was ejected from the hospital. He reappeared four years later in Versailles, and died following a lengthy bout of diarrhoea. (more...)
  • See Iridescent's Oppose above. Also, with past April 1 TFAs of Ima Hogg and Wife-selling, I don't believe Pig-faced women would present diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I in fact raised the question of using it as a TFA in passing during the FAC; Iridescent's reply suggests that he wasn't that keen on it being used. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although it's an unexpected reaction given that the article introduction is almost certainly written in a tone which summarises the man's "freak show" value than examining him as a serious medical case. I'm slightly surprised to see ethical concerns being raised; would it even have been written if there wasn't a fascination with the grotesque/unbelievable aspects of the man? Anyway, I guess we'll have to go with the wild area. Bob talk 11:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

With Wife selling last year, Pig faced women is unsuitable as it would be two 'quaint English tradition' articles in a row. Plus, it would be as spectacular a vandalism magnet as we've ever had. (You do seem remarkably keen to inflict the god-awful experience of April 1 onto articles in which you've never previously shown any interest. Do you realize just what you're actually volunteering me for? Without bothering to notify me, natch.)
Regarding Tarrare, there was no intention at all to present it as a 'freak show'. As the earliest case in my eating disorder series, it's by definition the one in the most sensational language - Percy's paper is AFAIK the earliest scientific paper on an eating disorder, and the technical vocabulary didn't yet exist. I'm still yet to understand what you find funny about diarrhoea, too. – iridescent 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Cock Lane ghost. With a plethora of cocks, ghosts and scratching Fannies, how could anyone resist? Parrot of Doom 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, for some reason I'd assumed that article had already been TFA'd (was it a Halloween candidate at some point?). I think you may have a winner if you're happy for it to run on April 1st. Is there a blurb somewhere? Bob talk 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be saved for Halloween. I think Tarrare is better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Tarrare should not be considered as a possible candidate; Iridescent has surely explained why not enough times. Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was voting while multitasking. I am in the middle of an online poker game in another window. I will have to read her objections more closely. They must be above the blurb where I did not check.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I see her objection in an entirely separate section. I guess there is a note about it, but I thought it was refering to her comment here that seemed like a weak oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no blurb yet, in truth before it's made TFA (if at all) I need to run over the article with a copyedit brush, but I'm sure someone could make a decent blurb for 1 April if required. Parrot of Doom 08:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Douglas Adams circa 1998.
Douglas Adams circa 1998.
Fanny scratching in 18th-century London's Cock Lane was so notorious that interested bystanders often blocked the street. It became the focus of a religious controversy between Methodists and orthodox Anglicans, and was reported on by celebrities of the period such as Samuel Johnson. Charles Dickens referred to the phenomenon in several of his books, including Nicholas Nickleby and A Tale of Two Cities, and other Victorian authors also alluded to it in their work. One enterprising resident diverted the crowds that gathered in Cock Lane by allowing them to converse with a ghost he claimed was haunting his home, to which he charged an entrance fee. Fanny scratching eventually resulted in several prosecutions, and the pillorying of a father for encouraging his 11-year-old daughter to take part. (more...)

Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG, lol! That's a yes from me! Parrot of Doom 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dang! I'm on board. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A good one. Well, for non-native speakers it kind of loses the instant attention but it's still a great AF material. The proposed blurb is a bit short, try to include Prince Edward who apparently attended it (though I can't find the reference for it). --Tone 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We might also discuss whether Quehanna would be appropriate this year, considering Japan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this concern before. Yes, it is not appropriate. In a couple of years, maybe. Until then, we have enough time for Pigeon photographer to become a FA. --Tone 13:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
An article that isn't even at FAC cannot become an FA in a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think what he's saying is, 2011–Cock Lane, 2012–pigeons, 2013–Quehanna. I personally doubt the pigeon one will ever make FA, as the sources just don't seem to exist, but am happy to be proven wrong. – iridescent 14:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to Cock Lane Ghost (I just saw the April 1st TFA). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

FL and FS on the main page

WP:POST said that FLs and FSs are going on the main page. Are they going on in place of FAs? Where were the discussions and what are the details?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The only time I remember it happening at all was the rare "triple" we had on the tenth aniversary, see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/January_2011, January 15, where we had a list, a topic, and a sound (but no article) for that day. I don't know that this was designed to inaugurate an expansion of main page featured content as standard policy, or whether it was a one-off event just for the tenth anniversary. --Jayron32 04:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been directed to Talk:Main_Page/Archive_157#Featured_list_proposal which tells me about the FL debate. I aslo found the FS debate in the prior archive. I remain unclear when this begins. Damn. I have to learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April queue miscues

I see Maya Angelou's image twice at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2011. I think some material has been copied incorrectly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, I guess, as I don't see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 23

I have nominated the Shakespeare Authorship Question for April 23, the day traditionally celebrated as Shakespeare's birthday, which is also his death date. I may have made some mistakes with my nomination, and ask that someone correct them if I did so. The article has just now been promoted to Featured status. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to explain the calculation whereby you get five points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Up to 6 after re-reading the guideline. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, perhaps.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Point query

Can someone check points for Shimer College in the box in the upper right?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Any date in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
May 11 (the anniversary of its opening).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing four, two for nothing similar six months, date connection, underrepresented.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point query

Need to know the point score for date relevance for USS President (1800). May 16 is the 200th anniversary of the Little Belt Affair in which President was one of the combatants. So 6 points or only 1? Thanks. Brad (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks important enough in the history of the vessel to be worth the points. Of course, I'm not a naval expert and it's possible to nudge the emphasis of an article so that ignoramuses like me will be fooled.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Even though the affair created a stalemate as both Captains claimed the other one fired first, it was one of the factors in the US declaring war on Britain 18 June 1812, as they believed Little Belt to have been the aggressor. Alternative TFA 200th anniv. dates for President are 23 June 2012 (first shot of the war) or 15 January 2015, the date President was captured in that war. Brad (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

World Migratory Bird Day

Just a thought, May 14-15 is World Migratory Bird Day - see here. There are a handful of migratory bird FAs not yet been on mainpage. I of course have a vested interest in White Stork but there is also Cattle Egret, Eurasian Crag Martin, American Goldfinch (nice picture that one), Common House Martin, Northern Pintail, Red-necked Grebe and some others I am sure...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Blah, added one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, today was Audubon's birthday and google celebrated it...missed that anniversary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

April 29

I was not thinking about the wedding earlier, but is the best thing we have an English village.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises

I've never requested a TFA so am posting here first because I'm a little unsure about the process. I'd like to request Ernest Hemingway's novel The Sun Also Rises be run on July 2nd, the 50th anniversary of his death. Currently the article is still at FAC, but with supports, so I'm hopeful it will pass in time. Does the person doing the requesting write the blurb? Also, I haven't a clue how to assign points. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Usually the nominator writes the blurb, cutting the lead down to about standard TFA length (c.1,200 characters) but others up to and including Raul654 may well help improve it. As for points:
  • it'd get nothing for age;
  • it might or might not get a "date relevance" point (since TFAR is getting a bit stricter on relevance than it used to be, but as far as I can remember there are some precedents for works getting a point on significant dates for their creator); even if it doesn't get a point, it would be a good reason for others to support;
  • if you wrote a stub about the article on the Simple English Wikipedia (or another language of your choice) it would then have 20 other-language versions, gaining 1 point for "widely covered";
  • if this would be the first time you've had something you've worked on appear as TFA, you'd get 1 point;
  • and then "similar articles" will depend on what's been chosen by Raul between now and the time you put in the request. The last book was Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas on April 2, which might just scrape you an extra point depending on whether we count "no similar articles within 3 months = 1 pt" as including articles that were featured 3 months exactly before the requested date.
Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep, you would write the blurb. Generally, one just takes the lede section of the article and trims it down to about 1200 words. As for points, the date connection is a bit flimsy to get points for (for a book, it would generally be the anniversary of first publication). That's not a huge problem, as you can still request a date based on other points. Since you've already had a Featured Article appear on the Main Page (Edmund Evans) you could either write a short translation to one more non-English Wikipedia (for 2 points based on wide coverage), or simply submit it as-is at 0 points. The page isn't seeing much activity at the moment and I've not seen an article bumped off for months - unless another novel TFA appears in the weeks running up to July 2, it would probably get through. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think a 50th death anniversary fine for date relevance. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that we ran the biography last June. Otherwise I would have requested that. Anyway, will submit and see what happens.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but others take a more stringent approach to the points system. In my experience, it's better to go in claiming fewer but certain points. Points disagreements tend to draw more opposes than any factor other than the article being about a video game. Annoyingly bureaucratic, but that's Wikipedia these days. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Template

No one's using the TFA/R template (at top of page on right), excluding me. Do we scrap it? Has it value still?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I keep a list on one of my subpages (User:The ed17/Next). I suppose the template is helpful if you forget to nom your article and so someone nominates it for you, but otherwise I dunno how much it helps. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be very helpful to me if people actually used it. I keep getting nominations here with alt text (which I don't need or use) but without a caption (which I do need). Raul654 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New position - Main page FA delegate

I've decided to appoint a new delegate to help me with scheduling the featured articles that appear on the main page. This person will choose articles (including requested ones), write up the blurbs, and schedule them for future dates, just like I do. After consulting with Sandy, I asked user:Dabomb87 to take up the role, and he agreed. Raul654 (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Dabomb! I'm sure you'll do great in this role. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent choice! I have made adjustments to the instructions page to reflect the appointment, there are probably other pages that need slight tinkering.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Great choice! Good luck Dabomb. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Good move. TCO (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, and good luck to Dabomb! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Very good choice. Congrats, dabomb! Karanacs (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

there are NO opposes in the frigging table

I'm going to show you guys how we break heads (I mean eggs, don't repermaban me, moderators (I mean "admins")) and make omelletes. If everything is above average, NOTHING IS. TCO (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the point of "opposes" - opposes are really meant for if something is, for example, inappropriate for the main page, not up to scratch any more, too similar to something else which has been run recently, or as we recently had with tourette's syndrome, an editor has expressed that they don't want it featured on the main page. The points and support/oppose votes only really come into the equation if two articles are vying for the same date, as they are all "featured articles", meaning that all articles proposed here should be above average. Bob talk 22:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Even "false" requirements to choose amongst options can drive a higher level of thinking. Mwahahaha. TCO (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Look, there was a time when this page was very much a free for all, it took time and patience and and there was slipping on everyone's part before it became the calm place you see today. We've come to realize that since all we do is make recommendations, there's really not much to fight over.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I could create fights. I could. Really. I am good at that. Just they are awful quick on the trigger here. TCO (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Not many recommendations put forward these days. It's a pity that some key days are missed just because no one thought to nomitate an article on an appropriate day. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I made a list a while back of most of the potential date connections for the unused FAs, but it's surprisingly hard to avoid conflicts from the Main Page representation criterion. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess there was no bus route, sock drawer, non-land-hitting hurricane from the 1950s, or random sock drawer proposed.  :) TCO (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait...I forgot to include the random NY synagogues. TCO (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Widely covered

We give 2 points for articles with 20 international versions. Should we consider giving 1 point if they have 15-19 for articles that are almost widely covered.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. I don't think we give enough importance points. Raul654 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good thing, but worry that the instructions page is getting intimidating in its complexity. If we add this, perhaps we can simplify elsewhere?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is way too complex. I really would value less emphasis on "points" and more discussion of the topic and why important to feature on the limited real estate of the front page. Even just the discussion (regardless of if something "wins" will be more "insightful" (hate that word, but can never thing what to say instead...). I mean take a BIG STEP back and just look at the points for Rufus doing Judy versus the points for The Sun Also Rises. And then which we would be poorer off for not having in the 'pedia!  :)
Plus Hemingway looks better with a scarf around his neck...TCO (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Simplify it to 1 pt for every 10 international versions (to a maximum of x pts). --Dweller (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest as a max. I am thinking maybe 3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you ever see the movie Caddyshack with the complications of the John Candy poker? Raul said he wanted it SIMPLER. No maximum. TCO (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No maximium would give United States 20 points. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You had me at hello... 23:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you joking? If not, three is way to low and would hit core articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep.
(ec)Agree with Raul and like the suggestion of 1 pt for every 10 international versions - would put the maximium at 9 pts. Not perfect, but a simple improvement. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Check of current TFAR's

Examples using 1 point every 12 languages.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think nine for just being widely covered is a bit much. It would overweight being widely covered. I can't see more than 5 or 6 as being good for the project. There are a lot of really popular FAs that would go well over 6, but should not necessarily be the highest priority just for being widely covered. I think Micheal Jackson would max out 9 just for widely covered. He is important, but widely covered should not make him the highest priority TFAR for that alone. If we are going to have no max, then 1 pt for every 20.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Many of the core topics doesn't have the links to support the current 6 points with a scoring system of 1 point for every 20, an extrene example is Fiction. 1 in 15 12 maybe acceptable, but 1 in 20 is to harsh. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is still a lot of points. I don't think something should get any more for being widely covered than for a 500th anniversary. It should at least be 1/15. although I would agree with 12 and a max of 4 or 5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
For me the aniversary is only relevant is proportion to an articles importance. The 500th anniversary today of Jean Bertaut is nothing compared to the importance of William Shakespeare) on any random day. Yet the current points give Jean Bertaut(6 points Centennial anniversary) and William Shakespeare(4 points vital article), if you impose an importance max of 4 or 5 you get the same results. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a max of 3 or so is OK, if we leave the vital and core topic points in place. Raul654 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think some metric for "importance" is useful, but worry about this way. After all, En-wiki is clearly the most important of the wikis. A lot of the other ones are just translating or such. I heard one of the languages got taken over by a gaming clan. It's a metric, sure. But maybe a rough one.

Instead of more points and systems, just have Raul run more stuff with either higher Google recognition OR higher "schooliness" (great books, not great South Park episodes, little gentle bias to not be ahistoric, etc.) would be good. I mean...something is wrong when Rufus is above Steinbeck. I bet he fails on both Google AND some "great books curriculum" metric.

Note, this doesn't mean the wiki won't contain quirky crap. Doesn't mean we will NEVER have a quirk on the front page. Just lower the AMOUNT of them.

Wiki needs more articles like Flourine to become FAs. (I'm not talking about the quality of it, but the topic importance both for number of searches that come to it, as well as the material itself in some resource for kid researching for school sense). Not more obscure hurricanes or bus routes or synagogues.

No on is STOPPING the writers of those from writing them. But I would not reward (so much) with main page. Nor...really would I subject our readers to obscure things, with their limited time. Nor I would I push this so much as "this is what Wiki is". It becomes a self-reinforcing system. Maybe at least a little gentle emphasis of the core would benefit everyone that uses 'pedia by leading to better writing...on the core.

Really, it is an extension of the view that many have about DYK. That we should have less hooks (does every article need to be a DYK? Do we need 6 hour rotations vice daily) and that the selection of hooks should more emphasize ones that really are "did you know" (interesting, not rote).

Of course this is subjective, but...the entire history of newspapers and magazines have shown that editors can make decisions about what to run on the front page. Raul should be able to do as good as Ben Bradlee. TCO (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Which do you think would be the more appropriate date for featuring Statue of Liberty: July 4 (American Independence Day) or October 28 (125th anniversary of its dedication)? The latter has a closer tie to the subject (and would score more highly on the points system), but I think more people would appreciate having a "patriotic" article appear on the former, and there's no better candidate available so far. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not American, but I would say the 4th July has a stronger significance. Bob talk 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the community wants. On the one hand it's the 125th on October 28, but this July 4 is also the 25th anniversary of Liberty Weekend, when the statue was rededicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Community wants the 4th.TCO (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

February 30

The Statue of Liberty is a colossal neoclassical sculpture on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886. The statue, a gift to the United States from the people of France, is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of American independence. A broken chain lies at her feet. The statue has become an iconic symbol of freedom and of the United States. Bartholdi was inspired by French law professor and politician Édouard René de Laboulaye. Due to the troubled political situation in France, work on the statue did not commence until the early 1870s. Fundraising proved difficult, especially for the Americans, and by 1885 work on the pedestal was threatened due to lack of funds. Publisher Joseph Pulitzer of the World initiated a drive for donations to complete the project, and the campaign inspired over 120,000 contributors, most of whom gave less than a dollar. The statue's completion was marked by New York's first ticker-tape parade and a dedication ceremony presided over by President Grover Cleveland. (more….)
My prewritten blurb for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems a bit long for a blurb (MS Word says 1470 characters). NW (Talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Providence today

Don't know if it's too late, but a better thumbnail pic could be used for today's FA for Providence.--Louiedog (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Roberto Luongo

Roberto Luongo

Roberto Luongo (/luːˈɒŋɡoʊ/; born April 4, 1979) is a Canadian professional ice hockey goaltender for the Vancouver Canucks of the National Hockey League (NHL). Born in Montreal, Quebec, he is of Italian and Irish ancestry. Luongo has been a finalist for the Vezina Trophy as the league's best goaltender (2004, 2007 and 2011), theLester B. Pearson Award as the top player voted by his peers (2004 and 2007) and the Hart Memorial Trophy as the league's most valuable player (2007).[1][2] Luongo played junior hockey in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) for the Val-d'Or Foreurs and the Acadie-Bathurst Titan, winning back-to-back President's Cups and establishing the league's all-time playoff records in games played and wins.[3]

Would make a good featured FA choice if the Canucks win the Stanley Cup. Never been featured before. One concern is that there's been a similar ice hockey article (Tiny Thompson, May 24). Would still be a good one to feature down the line if they don't win the Cup, but if they do, it'd be perfect timing to showcase this. Raymie (t • c) 02:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC) My blurb is not that OK either.

  • 1 point (15 months since promotion)
  • 1 point (date relevance would depend on outcome of Stanley Cup)
  • -2 pts. (Tiny Thompson – could be avoided by a date after June 24)
  • =2 pts. after June 24, 1 pt. if no Stanley Cup after June 24, 0 pts. right now

(moved request because I do not know what I am doing -RH)

Do you want this for June 24th? Pretty much the requests are full and since there is only one sooner request, your only option is to bump another request off the page that has less points then your's. There is already a hockey player proposed for this month, so only one of those would probably be approved.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the date connection, I don't think(?) Raul or Dabomb would have too big of an issue with running a second hockey article. I'd give it a shot – it can't hurt anything! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by nominations

I think we need an outright ban on these drive-by nominations (with exceptions for cases where the primary contributor is inactive), but at the very least we should mandate that drive-by nominators declare that they have no significant involvement with the article and notify the primary editor(s) and/or original FAC nominator(s). Authors might be "saving" an article for a special date or in some cases (cf. Topurettes) might not want it featured on the MP at all and it would be disrespectful for the people who have put their sweat and blood into an FA not to have a say on when it goes on the MP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is a drive-by nom really any different than when Raul selects an article to feature on his own accord? I don't think the problem is drive-bys, but rather than the primary editors are not being contacted when such a nomination is made. Resolute 03:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Resolute. Anything can go on the mainpage at any time, but it would be courteous to notify the main editors in the event they are just swamped IRL (as I have been every time TS has been brought up, and I'm the only editor who has the sources-- packed away in a box). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with HJ Mitchell here, although I think an outright ban might be unworkable. When Raul schedules something on his own accord, he'll invariably pull it if one of the authors requests it. If something is drive-by-nommed at TFAR and scheduled, pulling it is "going against the community" (even if "the community" just consists of the three people who happened to support it). While Raul would probably still pull it anyway if requested, it has more potential to create bad feeling and arguments. I'd suggest making "mention the nomination on the article's talk page" mandatory, to ensure those with an interest in the article are aware of the nomination and can object to it. (About 90% of drive-by nominations are by just one editor, by my reckoning; if we really want to get bureaucratic we could consider a one-nom-per-month throttle as well.) – iridescent 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sandy and Resolute here. There is no real difference between drives by and a director/delegate pick, except that in the former case, there's time to work things out. The best, thing, I think is to tell Dabomb and Raul your sensitive articles, the ones you don't want run, or if you don't want any of yours run (TFA will survive without any one editor's contributions, don't worry) or that you are saving for a specific date. Once they know where the concerns are, if necessary, they can block any runaway nomination at the pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think notification of the primary editor(s) would be sufficient. Take TonyTheTiger's nomination of Theoren Fleury as an example. If he notified me as primary contributor upon making the nom, and I came in and said "Oppose, I was hoping to save this for (date)", I would expect that regular commenters here would very likely agree to pull the nom. No harm, no foul. The nomination was made in good faith, any objection is made in good faith, and consensus reigns. Alternatively, since I had no date in mind for that article, I am happy to see another editor feels it is worthy of the main page. For that reason, I'm not a fan of preventing drive bys entirely.
Telling the directors of your opinions on when to run an article is interesting though. Perhaps it could be done via a template that generates an entry on a list or hidden category? Perhaps something like {{TFAR|Calgary Stampede|reqdate=2012-07-07|reason=100th anniversary of event}} that would add the article to a list of suggested dates. Something like that could help Raul and Dabomb schedule articles on open days, and help potential drive-by nominators decide if they are seeking to promote the article at a time the editors hoped? Resolute 16:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a better way of doing it is to have hidden categories generated for all significant dates in an article. Obviously only the interested are going to do that, so it will not get great coverage at first, but in a perfect world, Raul/Dabomb will be able to hit a page and see a list of all eligible FAs with a significant anniversary on that date. Keeping in mind, of course, they aren't always looking for anniversaries, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should probably clarify my edit summary here: I have no problem with editors other than the primary authors making requests, but we should remember that TFA day is a busy and often stressful time for the author, and it's important that we allow them a chance to give input on Main Page appearances. I've tried to schedule three or four days in advance so that there is ample time to make a change, if needed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination period is shorter than the penalty period

It strikes me as odd that one cannot nominate an article more than 30 (or 35 as it is today) or 20 days in advance, yet can be penalized if an article with a similar topic appeared within 60 days. Shouldn't the nomination period be at least that long so that people can announce intentions for specific dates without losing points as they await the day they can nominate the article? There are never a huge number of specific date requests, so I personally don't understand why the limitation is in place. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I just use the pending list to announce my intentions to nominate an article when the 30 day window opens up. I'm not sure if that's it's purpose, but it fits. I will share that I learned the hard way that it's not a queue for nominations. When the 30 day window opens up, you need to be quick with the nomination when a spot is available. --SkotyWATC 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's the case here. We have a situation where a US highway article (U.S. Route 491) has been scheduled by the TFA delegate for July 4, and it impacts the points for a request that can't be made yet for August 31 (Don Valley Parkway). In between, we have a request for August 2 (Interstate 68) that was made today that also impacts the potential August 31 request. In the July 4 case, US 491 has no date connection beyond being an American article for Independence Day. At least with the two August requests, they have direct connections as those dates are the 20th or 50th anniversary of the roadway openings. I've already opposed the August 2 request because of the other two. If only Don Valley Parkway runs, it's a 7-point nomination and the request can't be made until August 11. If US 491 runs, DVP drops to 6 points (loses the point for something within three months of the requested date) and if I-68 runs, with or without US 491 running, the nomination drops to 4 points (loses the possible point for something with three months, but actually earns a 2 point deduction for something within a month).
So, to summarize floydian's complaint another way, we have a poorly publicized pending list that I had never heard of until today, a non-date-connected selection made today (US 491) that's impacting a request that can't be made yet (DVP), and another nomination (I-68) that could be made that could sink a request completely before its allowed to be made. In all, I'd rather the DVP article run and none of the others because DVP is hitting its 50th anniversary over a 20th anniversary and no date connection. Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it really the end of the world if Don Valley Parkway only has four points instead of six? Is it that likely that a four-point article would get removed from the queue? Like Wehwalt says further down in the thread, the competition for dates isn't particularly strong, so it would be unlikely that even with two fewer points that Don Valley Parkway would get removed. Considering that, I don't really understand your opposition to Interstate 68. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Where are you getting 60 days from? It's −2 points for a similar article within the last month, but there is no change in points if the time gap is larger than that. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"A similar article has not been featured on the main page:[5] Within three months of requested date: 1 point". So Don Valley Parkway loses the ability to claim a point if US 491 runs. If I-68 runs, it loses that ability and is penalized -2 points when it can't even be nominated yet at the time I-68 could run. Imzadi 1979 → 23:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My bad on the 60 days. Malfunctioning head organ to blame, today at least. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry about your sinuses. I think that to have a new policy based on this would be using a sledgehammer to crack open an egg. Raul has proven very cooperative in the past when it comes to moving articles in situations like this. I expect that Dabomb87 will act similarly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else think we've got carried away with The Rules™ here, to the detriment of having the right article scheduled for the right day, hopefully to the satisfaction of both Raul/Dabomb and the article's main contributors? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think newcomers don't always realize that this is a very informal process at heart, and that special requests to Raul and Dabomb are not resented and usually granted. Now, there was certainly a time when the process was not that way, and we can tell horror stories until the cows come home. I once calculated that 85 percent of articles requested ran either on the requested day or within a year. I think it must be well over 90 percent now. There are rarely competition for specific dates, and things can usually be massaged. Despite Da Rules (so there), this is a very accommodating place.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. This page is for recommendations; the final decision almost always rests with the FA director. Both Raul and I are more than happy to work with the needs of individual editors within reason. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

display blurb as it will run?

Could we change the prep area (and perhaps the delivered message) to show the blurb as it will run (with the columning)? TCO (reviews needed) 03:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Jonathunder (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we transclude the text of the page each TFA is on, into the notification? That way if the blurb changes, the TFA editor is more likely to see it. The notification could even explain this point, and that the recipient may be interested in keeping an eye on things.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I went over and put mine on watch. I'm a little ambivalent as to if I will mess with mine or just stay 100% hands off and let what happens happen. Dabomb added text to mine (probably to it's benefit as an overview, to include some of the creature habits). Although I'm a bit worried the para will be very long now, expecially in a column (could edit it of course). I did kind of like the purity of just running with the first para of the lead itself as then the reader, literally just moves down to the rest of the article...but that was just an idea...not sure it is best either.TCO (reviews needed) 15:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

former featured articles

If a page was featured on the main page some time ago, lost featured status, and reattained it after significant changes, would it be eligible for the main page again? I would suggest that it should be eligible, with some significant point penalty to reflect this fact. I'm asking this question in regards to voting system, which has some way to go before re-attaining featured status, but is now in sight of the goal. Homunq (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer would probably be a 'no', given the sheer number of FAs we have and limited slots for them to have their 15 minutes 24 hours of fame...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if it is sent "to the back of the line"? I don't think this is a common enough case that it would appreciably change the situation for new featured articles. Homunq (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you raising this for a specific example or some love of theory?TCO (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I'm interested in knowing the possibilities for voting system. But you're right, those possibilities are just theoretical for now, so I guess I should shut up until I have an actual argument to make. Homunq (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This question could apply to Bath, Somerset which was promoted to FA in April 2005 & appeared on the front page in Sept of that year. It was "demoted" in December 2006. I then got involved and it passed GA in Jan 2008 and FAC in Feb 2008.— Rod talk 11:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I think there has already been one rerun. Not sure if it was one that had lapsed or not.

2. Bad side of reruns is you have other stories that have never been up. Seems not a good idea unless we are low on candidates.

3. Seems to reward a piece for having gotten delisted.

TCO (reviews needed) 13:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The one rerun was Barack Obama for the special 4 November 2008 TFA which featured him and McCain, the two presidential nominees. See Talk:Barack Obama. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to see Gough Whitlam run when the man dies (he's 95) even though it was one of our first TFAs in 2004, was demoted, and later salvaged back to fA. However, I will lose no sleep if it does not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea, especially for someone (presumably) not well known outside of Australia. But would say the same if we did Bush pere and then a few years later he croaked.TCO (reviews needed) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You are going to need Australian and Canadian votes in your run for ArbCom! Careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We have quite a few former featured articles that have been fixed up and refeatured. One FA has appeared on the main page twice - John McCain, which split main page time with Barack Obama on the day of the US Presidential elections. I think Raul stated he didn't have plans to run anything else twice unless there was an incredibly special occasion. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It was actually the Barack Obama article that appeared on the Main Page twice. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You have a better memory than I! I knew it was one of the two and guessed wrong. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Remind me to not put stuff into small text, like I did above, because apparently people don't read it. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it: We have run a new Featured article everyday since the start of the process. — Dispenser 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
With more articles being promoted than can be run, I think we would have to have a community consensus to restore the eligibility of FFA, and unless there was a strong feeling that we need to give people incentives to work on FFA, I personally don't think it matters whether people work on FFA in particular and don't think there'd be consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

pickin' at picta

OK, Dabomb added some behavior text to my blurb (basically compiling the 1st and 3rd paras). I'm still not 100% sure, if we should try to just write a shortened lead, or just run the literal first para of the lead (TFA virgin here). But anyway, in for a dime, in for a dollar. I decided to just write the whole thing to be of user interest. [6]

  • Added some more "of interest" material like the "what eats it and what it eats" as well as 4 state reptiles.
  • Cut some of the content (for length) that is "of less interest" or read more cruftily (like the size with the awful lots of converted numbers and all, and most of the life cycle).
  • Simplified some words and cut a bit of the taxonomy.
  • Added a para break.

TCO (reviews needed) 06:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to keep the blurb length reasonably close to 1200 chars so that there are no visual balance issues with the other items on the Main Page (which is why I added some text to your original proposed blurb). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I kept the length up.TCO (reviews needed) 14:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Points for Governor of Kentucky

I intend to nominate Governor of Kentucky for TFA when the appropriate window opens. My date choice is November 8, 2011, the date of the 2011 gubernatorial election, so I think it's safe to claim the date relevance point. (Kentucky is one of only five states to hold off-year gubernatorial elections, so it's not like there would be a whole lot of political articles to potentially compete for this date due to their elections.)

After that, it gets a little fuzzy for me. I would contend that this article is about an office, which is different from an elected official. If elected officials count as similar, then I probably won't get to claim any main page representation points (depending on what gets run between now and then). If officials and offices are not similar (for purposes of main page representation), then I could claim as many as two points, again, depending on what gets scheduled between now and then. Potentially similar non-elected-official articles from the six-month window include California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 (June 4) and Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia (August 9). I don't think either of these are similar enough, but that's for the community to decide.

Further, I might be able to claim 2 points for a decennial anniversary. The first Kentucky gubernatorial election was held in 1791, although the date was different back then, owing to differences between the first state constitution and the present (fourth) one. If this qualifies, then this would be a 220-year anniversary. I appreciate your feedback on the point values. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

moved from /pending to here. BencherliteTalk 15:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Even though I write a few now and then, I think for purposes of points, all politics articles are much of a muchness. At best, we can separate out politicians. I agree you should get the decennial anniversary, we have allowed similar situations now and then.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: What is the reasoning behind the five article limit?

It honestly seems like the point system, which makes sense for articles competing for a single day, has been poorly applied to make this process into a game. What purpose does it serve to limit the number of community nominated (as opposed to selected by an admin) articles over a 30 day period to five? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is nobody that can actually come up with a reason, the point system should be removed unless two articles are competing for the same date. Community-endorsed nominations are more important. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous well-known reasons, and it makes little sense to take the time to write them up when they are so well known and established by consensus, but you are welcome to review the archives here in your free time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure someone else can enlighten me. Obviously can't be because of competition. Can't be because of the threat of running similarly themed articles consecutively, as the community seems pretty good at weeding that out on their own. What good reason can possibly be offered up for tossing out community nominations in favour of those hand picked by Raul. No offence to his work at all, but he's a single person making a decision on behalf of the community instead of allowing the community to nominate. The support and oppose system is all that is necessary. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 2#My idea for revamping this page: a point system. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That explains the point system, which I agree is a great way of dealing with conflict as opposed to first come first serve basis. However, it states that the five article limit was already in place. Looking further up that archive, a discussion states that it has already been had and its a beaten horse. Fair enough. I guess that means it was discussed in Archive 1. However, the only piece of info I could come up with from that archive is that 30 would be hard to handle scheduling for. That point seems mooted by keeping the number of undated requests limited to one; the remainder are dated requests and if anything relieves him the duty of creating his own blurbs when he schedules an article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's be pragmatic. The system works, has kept the peace for the last three years thanks to dedicated people like Sandy, and there's an old saying, "Do not tamper with a system that works."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That's the thought process that kept the earth flat and the centre of the universe for thousands of years. Again, the point system is certainly useful for dealing with conflicts for the same day, but the five article limit is A) unexplainable B) discouraging C) a game.
"Don't fix it if it ain't broke" is a saying which applies to adding addition rules or restrictions on a process that already works. It does not apply to reforming an antique process that appears to serve no useful benefit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It exists because of the fact that at one time, there was no limit, and there could be 30 on the page at once, which was unhelpful to Raul.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Of note, it was when Raul was doing everything by himself. Which lends the question... if there are always 5/6 nominations on the page now (and there haven't been when I've looked), and we have several helpers now, is it worth considering upping the limit? I think it would be - but I also do not believe the page is busy enough to necessitate it at this point. Resolute 01:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's been said before that the process of nominating an article for TFA is not a formal one. With a good reason, one can request directly to posting admins, at their discretion, for an article to appear on the main page. We are not bound by the procedure; that's why pending requests exist. We also don't want to see this turn into something like Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Early on under the five article limit we did have trouble with people who couldn't get their articles on the requests page because of the demand, I don't think anything like that has happened since perhaps late 2009, early 2010. I think the five article limit stops reviewers and delegates from being a bit overwhelmed, and since it is well known that it's easy to bypass TFA/R by direct application to Raul or Dabomb, I don't think there's much pressure here.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed... If the process has stabilized in the past couple of years than can we not do away with it and see how that goes? I still advocate only having one undated request at a time. However, watching over the history of this page for the past several days has shown me that this 5 article limit is pretty heavily enforced, with new nominations simply being reverted if they fail to deem another entry unworthy of consideration. If its found the page clogs up with 30 entries (doubtful), then lower the limit to 15 or 20 days. The point here is that the community can be relied upon to make a decision, rather than the need for a process to make that decision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It's somewhat more complicated than that. There are many articles that do not have anniversaries to which they can be associated. This leaves them in the backburner waiting for articles that do have them. One example is today's featured article Choe Bu, which has sat for three years before anyone knowing it existed. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I could see that being a problem if all 30 slots were filled, but as it is there are often times when the 5 slots aren't filled. How about a trial of 10 slots for those who are worried it may get out of hand if we open wide the floodgates? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
Why double capacity when you aren't selling out the arena? I would not advocate adopting your suggestion lightly. There may be all sorts of effects on when nominators nominate. We want the nominations on the page in time for the community to give feedback. Since not every editor is on all the time, ideally we'd like the noms up there for a week to give everyone time (similar sort of logic to the length of a RfA). I suspect that given a completely noncompetitive atmosphere, people are going to start nominating later and reviewers may not bother to say much. Let me ask you this: What is your rationale for doubling the number of slots? What is the ill you are trying to remedy?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
If we aren't selling out the arena, then why are we turning people away at the door?[7][8]
Again, I fail to see any actual rationale for this being in place. Some good rationales for back when the process was started in 2004, but now its mostly "eh. It works." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is an excellent argument. We have plenty of things that don't work, why worry about the things that do? Juliancolton (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Because I don't believe it is working when nominations are being removed for an arbitrary limit. But I can bet you any sum of money that the process will continue to operate smoothly without the limit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
So if not one person can offer a reason other than "eh, well...", I'm going to start being bold when I get home on Monday. It's this kind of political gimmicking that's led to the current financial state of affairs in the world. Pass on the buck. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
And you'll be reverted, I expect, as the five article limit enjoys community support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Wehwalt (and using BOLD as an excuse against consensus is just ... well ... disruptive). Generally, if DaBomb87 or Raul654 are ready to increase the number (to whatever number they think appropriate), then I would agree. But since the page is under utilized anyway, increasing the number makes little sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's important to keep our eyes on the ball. The sole purpose of this page is to facilitate suggestions to myself and Dabomb. Changes to how this page operates must be judged based on how useful he and I find it as well as how it serves the nominators.
A bit of history -- this page originally had no limit to the number, and no one to maintain it. As a result, it became huge (100+ nominations at a time) and unwieldy. Version 2 of this page was limited to 5, on a first come, first serve basis. The current version (limit of 5, disputes mediated by points) is the third iteration of this page.
From my observations of this page, I think it's underutilized most of the time. That is to say, [many] more days than not, there are less than the maximum number of allowable nominations. (Or, to use the above analogy, even the Clippers occasionally sell out a game. That doesn't mean they need a larger arena) For that reason, I don't think increasing the number of nominations is a good idea.
On a related note - if anyone has ideas for getting more people to use this page, I'm all ears. Especially the non-specific date slot, which is by far the most useful part of this page. Raul654 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
So basically the reasoning for deleting a sixth community nominated article is because more often than not there is less than five? Can nobody see the total nonesense in such an argument? I can see where this was useful from a historical perspective, but no longer. Fortunately wikipedia isn't a multibillion dollar stadium, and changing a pointless process is as simple as deleting the line from the page and no longer enforcing it. Not a big deal, in other words. But instead there is resistence purely on the notion of changing the unreasonable status quo. I can understand that at one point it became overwhelmed, but the point system and a window for nominations of 30 days is more than enough to handle every situation.
Perhaps the best way to handle this would be to start a request for comment, and see what others around the community think about a baseless limitation? The upgrades that have taken place since that limitation was placed have rendered it needless.
Also, I personally believe that "consensus" is established by reasoning, not by a straw poll. A bunch of users saying "no, cause we don't like it" is the disruptive process, not the innovator looking to cleanup a rusted machine.
As for attracting more users here, it should be linked from the automated message posted to an editors talk page when their FAC is promoted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no automated message posted to nominators' talk pages when their FAC is promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
He's probably talking about the TFA notice which notifies principal editors and nominators when you or Raul select that article. That is not automated, however.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad, I assumed there was. Given that there isn't, there should be! Then that should inform editors of the next progressive step after a successful FAC, coming here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Some human judgement goes into who is notified, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is not real estate. Many of the analogies are good, but what most are overlooking is that it is possible to have a dynamic limit, enabling the directors to vary the limit to suit their needs at various times. But as Raul says, this page is largely for his and Dabomb's benefit, and it is for them to decide if something like that would be desirable.

Arsonal touches on a good point. TFAR certainly shouldn't aspire to become the overstretched free-for-all that TFLS is. There is no denying that the list review rate has a) been disappointing and b) can be directly attributed to having too many blurbs on the page.

Despite that, TFLS did help us achieve the majority of our objectives. We wanted to build up a stockpile of blurbs to keep open the possibility of running more than one list a week, and we wanted an accurate gauge of what subject areas "demand" was coming from. The system is arguably a variation of the old TFA selection process.

My intention is to eventually have a public blurb-drafting page, but to only use that as a holding area and not have any reviews there. We would then have a separate reviews page limited to perhaps 10 entries at a time. It would arguably be a transparent variation of present-day TFAR. "Transparency" refers to the fact that instead of Raul and Dabomb drafting blurbs for rainy days behind the scenes, the TFL directors' safety blanket would be visible.

Sorry for the tangental nature of this post, but what I am trying to say is that the framework of TFAR is very good. It's not perfect, and tinkering around the edges could be productive, but it doesn't need wholesale change. Perhaps the simplest solution would be for the directors to schedule articles with substantial support slightly earlier than usual on occasions that the reviews page is close to or at capacity. If this resulted in Raul and Dabomb drafting one or two fewer blurbs per year, my guess is that would be a net reduction in their workload. —WFC— 20:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Decade anniversary of 9/11

Previous discussions: July 2008, September 2008, August 2009

With the September 11 10-year remembrance approaching its might be time to discuss if we should run an article. Every major newspaper will almost certainly be covering some aspect. The articles that already been ran were Construction of the World Trade Center - July 2007, 7 World Trade Center - November 2007, and United Airlines Flight 93 - Sept 2008. This leaves us with two terrorists (Khalid al-Mihdhar and Wail al-Shehri) and two flights (American Airlines Flight 77 and American Airlines Flight 11). Tangentially, there's also Jihad (song). — Dispenser 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Edit: I had accidently swapped Flight 93 and Flight 77, sorry about that. — Dispenser 12:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think running an article on the terrorists would be bad taste, personally. --Rschen7754 08:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If anything, Flight 93. Show the heroes, not the terrorists. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 11:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoops. I had accidentally swapped flight 77 with Flight 93. It would have been an excellent choice if we could rerun featured articles. — Dispenser 12:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously one of the two flights ... I have no objection to having the hijackers appear main page, but not on 9/11, we would be accused of bad taste.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of running the terrorists on that date either. Since Flight 77 and Flight 11 hasn't been on the Main Page yet, I don't think we should pass them over so that we can run Flight 93 again. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that going with the terrorists on the anniversary would be extraordinarily bad taste. Flights 11 and 77 would be good choices. If it had not already appeared on the main page, Flight 93 would be the obvious choice. I might be open to using it despite the fact that it already appeared on the main page. (I'll decide that as the date gets closer) Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Flight 93 is more of a feel good story, but even though there was not an uprising on the other flights, I do not think that speaks badly of the victims. Perhaps the hijackers were more careful, or more brutal. I suggest running 11 or 77.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe we should run an article twice. American Airlines Flight 11 was the first plane to hit the World Trade Center so it's very relevant. Hekerui (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with 11 over 93. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the symbolism (and perhaps even that very very (very) small bit of "take that, terrorists!") makes this a good case of ignoring the norms. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not editorializing with selections. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case the article of the day should be randomly chosen for September 11th from all available and unrun Featured Articles. Yes, we are an encyclopedia, first and foremost. However, we have in the span of a decade become one of the most recognized names in the world. Wikipedia has become a part of humanity and human culture, and it should reflect that culture. This is why nobody is up to using the terrorists - it's distateful and one of the worst PR moves considerable, ever. The fact is that on the 10th anniversary, it makes cultural sense to go with the feel-good story, rather than following our standard every day procedure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Of whose culture? Any of the suggested proposals below are exceptional deviations from SOP for the sake of a United States-centric topic. Wikipedia's pillars have never been to "reflect [culture]". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Raul - If you are going to contemplate re-running flight 93, why not run all of them together? Instead of a blurb about a single aspect, why not write a blurb that includes, and bolds, each FA we have on the topic, whether or not they have run before? Resolute 14:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And in that case, I actually would include the terrorists too. Resolute 14:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I would include the four flights. Why would you include the terrorists? I don't want to give the screaming heads something to yell about on the talk shows.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Two reasons: 1. Balance. My proposal is to use most or all FAs in one special TFA blurb - flights, buildings and people. I might even lead with/bold September 11 attacks though it is only a GA, as in this case it is more an anniversary blurb than about a specific article. 2. Lets face it, if we ever TFA a 9/11 terrorist, people will bitch anyway. So why not put them on the main page as a small part of a larger focus rather than make them the entire focus at a later time? Resolute 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's actually... far from the worst idea I've ever heard. Yes, I agree that it's US-centric, but it'll highlight to the world how good Wikipedia can be, and I like that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The two American Airline flight articles have multiple deadlinks. Some cleanup should be done if Raul or Dabomb intends to feature them on the main page, in whatever form, in two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot request

I've submitted a bot request (WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 4) to notify the main contributors of upcoming TFAs (something now done manually by User:Tbhotch). If you have any questions or comments, please post at the BRFA. Ucucha (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

10 October: Premature nomination of mathematical-economics article, to coincide with Nobel Prize

Article is only at FAC, not yet a featured article. Hiding until promoted or Oct 10 passes. BencherliteTalk 09:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A blue disk contains red points. A smaller green disk sits in the largest concavity in among these red points.

In geometry and economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma describes the Minkowski addition of sets in a vector space. In mathematics, lemmas are propositions that are steps in a proof of a theorem. Minkowski addition is defined as the addition of the sets' members: for example, adding the set consisting of the integers zero and one to itself yields the set of the integers zero, one, and two:

{0, 1} + {0, 1} = {0+0, 0+1, 1+0, 1+1} = {0, 1, 2}.

The Shapley–Folkman lemma provides an affirmative answer to the question, "Is the sum of many sets close to being convex?" A set is defined to be convex if every line segment joining two of its points is a subset in the set: For example, the solid disk  is a convex set but the circle  is not, because the line segment joining two distinct points  is not a subset of the circle. The Shapley–Folkman lemma suggests that if the number of summed sets exceeds the dimension of the vector space, then their Minkowski sum is approximately convex. The lemma of Lloyd Shapley and Jon Folkman was first published by the economist Ross M. Starr, who was investigating the existence of economic equilibria that do not require consumer preferences to be convex. In his paper, Starr proved that a "convexified" economy has equilibria that are closely approximated by "quasi-equilibria" of the original economy; moreover, he proved that every quasi-equilbrium has many of the optimal properties of true equilibria, which are proved to exist for convex economies. Following Starr's 1969 paper, the Shapley–Folkman lemma has been widely used to show that central results of (convex) economic theory are good approximations to large economies with non-convexities; for example, quasi-equilibria closely approximate equilibria of a convexified economy. "The derivation of these results in general form has been one of the major achievements of postwar economic theory", wrote Roger Guesnerie. The topic of non-convex sets in economics has been studied by many Nobel laureates: Arrow (1972), Robert Aumann (2005), Gérard Debreu (1983), Tjalling Koopmans (1975), Paul Krugman (2008), and Paul Samuelson (1970); the complementary topic of convex sets in economics has been emphasized by these laureates, along with Leonid Hurwicz (2007), Leonid Kantorovich (1975), and Robert Solow (1987). The Shapley–Folkman lemma has applications also in optimization and probability theory. (more…)

5 points: Date 1 (Nobel Prize in Economics awarded 1 p.m. C.E.T.) , Contributor 1, Diversity 1 (first non-literary economics article, specifically first mathematical economics article ever: The previous articles have been exclusively on literary economics (economic history in the style of 1880s German universities), and none are representative of (scientific) research in economics in the last century:

The preceding mathematics article was Logarithm, 5 June 2011), Representative 2.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • You need to shrink the body, it have more than 2,000 characters. 800 more than the rules say.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    Will do.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm hiding this for now, rather than removing it from the page, to save you some work if this does pass within the next few days. I wouldn't agree with the date point (too tenuous a connection) and my instinct is to say that mathematics articles are sufficiently similar in topic not to break them down into "mathematical economics" and other subgroups each claiming points for lack of recent similar articles. I'd give it three points if promoted (contributor, diversity and last similar article between 3 and 6 months ago). BencherliteTalk 09:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for correcting my premature nomination, while preserving the work.
    On the contrary, scientific economics has never appeared as a featured article. Instead, all FAs have featured literary articles on economic history, written in the style of "economic history" of 19th-century German universities---ignorant of mathematics, statistics, and scientific methods. I have listed the FA articles in economics, which have little or nothing to do with modern economics.
    Arrow won the Nobel Prize in 1972, and his work is central to this article. The article discusses related work on non-convexity/convexification by other Nobel Prize winners, Samuelson (1970), Koopmans (1975), Debreu (1983), and Aumann (2005); Krugman was awarded the 2008 Nobel prize for his work on non-convexities in trade theory. An even larger number of laureates received the prize because of their work on convexity and economics, especially Dorfman, Kantorovich, Hurwicz, etc.
    Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are trying to do, and good luck on the FAC, but I've always understood we have a hard and fast rule that you must be a FA with status unquestioned to be on this page (that is, we do not permit articles that are at FAR). This is not a FA yet. I suggest the blurb be moved to talk. You've made people aware of it. On points, not certain on the date connection point, the rest looks good, will post again on that once I think about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is too remote. No one was awarded the Nobel for inventing the lemma, rather, the lemma has been applied in the work of several Nobel Prize-winning economists. I think based on Raul's guidance in this area, which says that it has to be so important to the subject of the article that even dates of death don't qualify (unless the person was notable for his manner of death). In my opinion, the date of this year's awarding of the prize that some economists who have used the lemma have won doesn't qualify. Before an argument breaks out, let me note that we have never bumped a four point artilce.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This is my first experience with the FA process. I am sorry for prematurely trying to obtain the 10 October slot. (Perhaps the connection is too tenuous: However, if the date be available, its coincidence would increase the readership for this article.)
I updated the lede and article to have a sentence about Nobel Laureates:

"The topic of non-convex sets in economics has been studied by many Nobel laureates: Arrow (1972), Robert Aumann (2005), Gérard Debreu (1983), Tjalling Koopmans (1975), Paul Krugman (2008), and Paul Samuelson (1970); the complementary topic of convex sets in economics has been emphasized by these laureates, along with Leonid Hurwicz (2007), Leonid Kantorovich (1975), and Robert Solow (1987)."

In the first group, all but Krugman had already been mentioned. The second group have been discussed, along with others in the first group, as Nobel Laureates who have did work with linear programming: One source would be essays in John von Neumann and contemporary economics. Krugman's work on increasing returns treated a special case of non-convexity.

(It is standard to mention Nobel Laureate status in economics discussions, particularly in popularization of modern economics. Mentioning the Nobel prize-winners would increase the readership, of course, which is why I made these changes today.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I am scaring you. My only intent was a routine point evaluation. It is easy to get the date connection point wrong, because it's really based on precedent and guidance from the Featured Article DIrector that may not be obvious to everyone!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the gentle comment. My shame at my mistake stems from my respect for the RfA project. I have taken off my slippers because I am on holy ground! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Mpthh. Shiff. Have those feet been properly bathed in holy water? The whole lightning from heaven thing, we still do that, or at least we will if we can ever find more fuses on eBay, they don't make them any more and there's no consensus to upgrade the electrical panel.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As you please. No need to make changes to get the fifth point, not much point as it has just about the same chance of running at four or five points.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fridtjof Nansen: Nobel Peace Prize 7 October 2011

The Norwegian scientist and humanitarian Fridtjof Nansen won the Nobel Peace Price for his work on behalf of refugees after WWI. If you want to increase the readership, then 7 (or 8) October 2011 would be also be a good day to feature him, with the main-page lede mentioning the Nobel Peace Prize.

As noted previously, featuring the Shapley-Folkman lemma next October in 2012 (rather than 10 October 2011) would be fine; October 11th of this year might even have more readers, because newspapers shall discuss the prize the morning of the 11th. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Five Bat Articles

We have five featured articles about bats that haven't been featured on the main page: Myotis alcathoe, Miniopterus aelleni, Miniopterus griveaudi, Pipistrellus raceyi, and Myotis escalerai. I know that usually we like to space out articles with similar topics (which is why we have points given for "no similar articles since..."). However, it'd be very hard to decide which one should run first (it'd end up being more or less arbitrary) knowing that whichever one we don't pick might have to wait over a year before we run it.

The thought's crossed my mind that it might be neat to flout that convention just this once and run all five of them back-to-back. Sometime this month would be the perfect month to do it since October is bat appreciation month. It might be a nice novelty; we could call it "Bat Week" or something. Considering we had three articles in a row with "temple" in their names a while back, it might be neat if we could have five bats in a row, assuming people don't get bored or tired of it after the first few days of course. What do y'all think? Difluoroethene (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think better than running a "Bat week" (we would certainly get nasty comments at Talk:Main Page, just allow three months between nominations. I don't think anyone would complain or likely notice except for the regulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Or a bat article for Hallowe'en, perhaps? BencherliteTalk 18:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could do a bat for Hallowe'en (though please see the discussion above regarding that date; specifically, there are several other articles that might have higher priority than one about a bat). The nonspecific date slot is currently open; I'd add one of the bat articles to the nonspecific slot myself, but I already have an article nominated and you're only supposed to have one nomination at a time, so someone else will have to do it. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As the primary author of all five of these articles, I don't think this is a particularly good idea. Even as bats go, those are particularly similar articles—all five are on recently recognized species (three from Madagascar and two from Europe), and the two Miniopterus in particular are very similar. I'm not particularly excited by the prospect of having to babysit a TFA five days in a row. Nor are any of these very exciting species (Desmodus draculae or so would have been more fun); for all five, we know very little about their biology, for example, and they are not part of groups that are particularly exciting in terms of their biology. Ucucha (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We could have a battleship week with five battleships from different countries... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it would be an interesting lesson in how little patience the cold hard world has with our obsessions!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"only up to November 4 if the entry would have five or more points"

Hi, quick question. Why is it that articles with less than five points can be suggested for far off dates, but articles with lots of points can't? Surely if an article has loads of points then it means it's a great candidate for main page, so why is it only articles that aren't so great (in terms of points at least) that can be suggested for far off dates? Surely articles with loads of points would have more right to a date first? Or have I missed something? Coolug (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've actually read the blurb properly now :) So I can bump off an article that's already blagged a date if my request has more points? That makes sense. Ok question 2, what would one do therefore if five far off dates are nominated, and a user wanted to nominate for a nearer date? Presumably they wouldn't be able to do this because all five spaces would be filled already? What would happen if somebody wanted their article on the main page on October 15? There's no article selected yet, but no space to nominate either. Coolug (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Because about two years ago, we had a problem with high point articles jamming up the page for thirty days. We've never bumped anything more than three points, so we decided it was pointless to allow an unbumpable article to spend thirty days there when Raul probably has all the information he needs about community sentiment about that article within a week. Yes, you can replace it, if there are already five dated articles there. Otherwise you just nominate it for the same date and leave the other article in place. Usually what happens then is a storm of support for one and opposes for the other.
If you run into a situation where a worthy article is going to be shut out because no vacancy will open in time, you just post on Raul or Dabomb's talk page and ask politely if they can consider running that article, assuming there is no competition for that date. A lot of the time they will, though sometimes they might say it's too soon since the last article on Amalgamated Widgets.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
(E/c with Coolug's second paragraph and then with Wehwalt) I think the answer to your first paragraph is that if a 5-pointer is nominated weeks in advance, it's effectively stuck there since it won't be bumped off and it won't be scheduled by Raul/Dabomb for ages (since they schedule in sequence, not the odd day here and there). For the time that it's stuck there, it may well prevent lower-scoring nominations for dates that are closer in time being nominated.
The answers to your second paragraph are: (1) Yes. (2) Nominate in the non-specific date spot; wait for another suitable date; ask Raul/Dabomb directly (not to be encouraged because I think they want to keep the process here rather than have lots of direct appeals, but sometimes a particularly suitable date might justify the personal request).
I was by coincidence looking at the state of the requests page, which looks fairly stuck for now with several high-scoring nominations seemingly entrenched for the foreseeable future, and wondering whether we needed to reduce the "five or more points" to "four or more points". BencherliteTalk 13:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm also available to withdraw Statue of Liberty for now if the slot is needed for someone else. However, please talk to me about it. It isn't due to run for another two weeks. I was cautious in the nomination because sometimes Raul and Dabomb might schedule well in advance, but I'll take the chance if someone needs the slot.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So a related question, how was Crown Fountain selected as tomorrows featured article? There was no discussion on here, and all I can see in the archives is a brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 10. I'm not taking issue with the selection or anything like that, I'm just curious to know how the process works. cya Coolug (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Only a minority of articles are recommended through this page. Raul or Dabomb selects the others. They generally accept the community's recommendation, though not always.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm new at this. Is there a different venue than this where articles are put up for consideration? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No. A minority of articles are recommended, as I said. The remainder are selected by either our Featured Article Director, Raul654 or his TFA delegate, Dabomb87.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

8 November

I'd like to nominate Robert Catesby for 8 November but as there's an article in that slot already, I thought I'd ask here to see what people thought. Last 5 November, Guy Fawkes Night received about 350,000 clicks. Guy Fawkes got 326,000, Gunpowder Plot (that day's TFA) got 175,000. Catesby, however, as the man behind the whole thing, got a measly 12,800 views. He died on 8 November 1605 (1 point), the article was promoted 1-2 years back (1 point). It irks me somewhat that the general public have little to no knowledge of his role in the plot, which was far more important than that of Fawkes. Normally I can't stand the hassle of TFA, but history needs to be told. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That date is three weeks away. Would it not be best to nominate the article on the project page? That is what is the usual procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain how this place works so I thought it best to ask first, lest I step on toes. The current 8 November nominator might not appreciate this. Parrot of Doom 22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Since what generally happens is that one or the other article loses its place because of oppose votes, we may as well have a discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As the other nominator for November 8, I would like to point out that the date connection for Governor of Kentucky only comes around every 4 years (each gubernatorial election) and there aren't many (any?) other relevant dates for that article. Presumably, Catesby would qualify every November 8, with some other significant dates connected to him as well (although I claim no knowledge of that subject matter). All that said, I could only muster 2 points for Governor of Kentucky, and it could lose one of those if there is another politics article as TFA between now and then. If this one ends up with more points, that's the way the cookie crumbles, although I'd be bummed about waiting another 4 years. :( Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Is a compromise possible? Can one run on the 7th or 9th? As it will be standard time by then, I guess the Kentucky article, if it ran on the 9th, would be there before the polls close. Alternatively, is there a date close by (the 5th, duh, but that's a conflict too) on which it could run?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If it runs on the 9th, there would likely be some updating (election results, reactions, etc.) necessary both to the blurb and to the article while it is on the main page. I see that as a bad thing, but ymmv. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just trying to explore all options. I have no position on which article runs. I am concerned that a vote could piss someone off and we can't afford to lose anyone, the project is large and we are shorthanded in all departments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Totally understand, and I'm not attacking your compromise attempt at all. It's a good thing. Just wanted to get that potential issue out there. For my part, missing this date wouldn't make me leave the project, for sure. I don't want this to turn into an argument either. The only reason I even mentioned it is because I mostly work on minor politicians from history, and this is likely the most connected any of my articles will be with any contemporary event. But no big deal if something else runs; that'd be silly to get mad over. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 15:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you never know until it happens :) Best to stop it in advance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
5 November would be my other preferred date, although Gunpowder Plot was TFA on that day last year. Parrot of Doom 17:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If not used on 8 Nov, would inauguration day be an alternative date for TFA? That'd give you more time to update the article than if it ran on 9 Nov. (Can't say I have strong feelings either way between the two articles) BencherliteTalk 22:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that, but it could potentially work. It might be a little harder to work the date into the blurb, but if it somehow gets bumped from November 8, inauguration day would probably work. Given that the Constitution puts inauguration day on the fifth Tuesday following the election, I think that would fall on December 15. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ St. Louis, Tortorella, Richards win awards. ESPN. 2004-06-11 [Retrieved 2010-02-01].
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference 2007 Awards was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference qmjhlalltime was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_12&oldid=1089829858"