Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Template with potential upcoming requests

I noticed that the template was just removed from the request page, but is still present on this talk page (and linked from the instructions on the request page). Personally, I like to see the upcoming requests, and would prefer the template to be on the main request page rather than here on the talk page (I don't think it needs to be transcluded in both places). Seeing potential upcoming requests allows people who want to make a request, or are considering whether to vote for or against a request, to see what similar articles might be requested soon. I would like the template to be on the request page since then everything I want to see related to that page is in one place. However, since I don't actually vote for or against requests very often, I thought I would ask here whether other people would prefer that template to be on the request page. Calathan (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think it's more convenient, for purposes of checking dates, removing outdated entries, so forth. I didn't catch why it was removed?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because it was already linked in the instructions that indicated it was on talk and clutters the page and isn't used by delegates. If the delegates want it, can it at least be collapsed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not only useful for the delegates, but for everybody who considers a request. I will remember where still to find it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone add a hide/show collapse so it doesn't cause a full page scroll before we get to important info on an already cluttered page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the page is remarkable uncluttered at the moment, and the "pending requests" box is helpful in terms of making decisions on a particular nom vis-a-vis about what might be coming in the future. At least I find it so, without having to click to another page. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add an overflow/scroll button, but even though I originally designed the blooming template, it has become too complex for me to know how to add an overflow scroll button. If someone could make it not take an entire page, it wouldn't bother me on the main page (but then the instructions should be fixed, because it is not a talk page template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone uses a widescreen display. I have one, but my web browser window is set in width to approximate a sheet of paper in the portrait (upright) orientation, not landscape (sideways). On my display, that box in its previous location forced the summary table to a narrower width. Depending on the length of the box, it pushed the start of the nominations quite a ways down the page as well, leaving a lot of blank whitespace below the summary table. Imzadi 1979 → 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See the overflow settings and scroll button at Template:FCDW/T; would something like that not solve it? I don't know how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

On my display, the template mostly sits in what is otherwise unused white space next to the summary table, and only pushes the nomiations down a little bit. I didn't realize it was causing problems with other display settings. If it isn't easy to get it to be on the request page without messing up the display for some people, then I think it is fine to just leave it on the talk page (though I would still prefer it on the request page if there is a way to get that to work well). Calathan (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeming source of the problem

• The source of the problem seems to be that Raul stopped editing over two months ago, and Dabomb, the delegate, has limited time. TFA's were not being selected until an hour or less before their appearance on the main page, and primary authors weren't being notified in time to clean up the article, and sometimes not notified at all. There was much complaining from FA editors. Poor articles, often old, no longer up to par with current FAC requirements and with maintenance tags were appearing as TFAs.

• Enough people weren't willing to vet articles, calculate points and nominate articles so that Dabomb did not have a decent selection and had to pick unvetted article at the last minute from those that hadn't appeared on the main page. (Points are often calculated inaccurately, so Dabomb would have to check the points even if the nominator provided them.) Gerda's solution was an attempt to address this problem, since so many are unwilling to nominate articles and calculate points.

• Having just checked the polar expedition articles and the star articles to determine their frequency of appearance this year, it is a job to figure out when the sequence of the last appearances, never mind the other point requirements (which I didn't check and would be hard to do - like is this the main editor's first appearance on the main page, anniversaries, geographical over representation and such.) I found the articles were "bunched" and certain topics (polar expeditions) were over selected under the "old" system.

• The "points" are not well understood. Birthdays are often used for points, which Raul specifically says do not count. Further, as Raul says, the FA categories are not the same as categories used for TFA selection, such as a biography of a film director is not the same category as a review of the film, so each were not prevented from appearing near each other. Also, some categories pertain only to certain countries and exclude others. Raul is no longer around to clarify these misunderstanding such as occurred with the Stephen Crane nomination. Thus there are unresolved arguments about what the individual "points" mean.

• Gerda's suggestions for increasing the slots for article suggestions alleviated this problem and gave Dabomb more to select from, preventing the last minute choices and the many complaints. Gerda's solution at least provides Dabomb with some assistance, and I am not aware that he has complained. Rather, his job seems more manageable now.

• If someone has a better solution, please offer it - especially since some FA editors are unwilling to nominate articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, there is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency just in case too. We could put a couple more in there too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably cycle those from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just one comment for now: Mathew, do you have a link or diff for Raul saying that birthdays don't count? My understanding of the workings of this page is that birthdays count but anniversaries of death usually do not. See Raul's comment at the nomination of John Lennon for December 8, 2010: "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." Bencherlite^Talk 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my wording was too casual, Bencherlite. Recently someone gave points to feature Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil for December 1 because she was born on December 1, 1831. However, Raul has said in his "Notes" regarding date relevance: "Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event." As I interpret Raul's wording from that sentence and some of his other comments, if a subject was born on November 5, for example, November 5 would not be enough of a date relevance as it is not a specific "anniversary" according to the way Raul defines anniversaries. Only an "anniversary" of that birth would count, e.g. 25th anniversary or some such. Also, how much "significant coverage" of a birth must be given in the article? e.g. more than the usual details about the birth? (Hope I'm wording this clearly - this is as I understand Raul's wordings made at various places.) The example you give regarding Lennon seems to be because the date was an anniversary of his death, IMO. - although the link also quotes User:Iridescent as saying: "I know Raul dislikes death anniversaries", the quote from Raul is "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." so I'm not clear what anniversaries are ok, since the "death" anniversary dislike is not in the point rules. And it seems to me that there would be very few equally notable births. Is there a statement by Raul clarifying the needed notability of a birth or death to count besides widely covered assassinations of extremely famous people? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hunting through the TFAR archives, I found this discussion from 2009 which clearly worked on the basis that birthdays would count as a point bonus; the discussion was formalised a couple of threads later on the same page, with many of the same participants (including me!) - so I think I've established to my satisfaction that my memory is not at fault. A birthday, or anniversary of birthday, is still an "anniversary" even if it is not divisible neatly by 5 or 10. My recollection is that the "death date anniversary" was often looked as a weak claim to an extra point, which is why Raul made a point of saying that Lennon's death was noticeable. Diffs to support that recollection will be harder to find since it will be mostly in the page history of the discussions, which aren't archived. However, Iridescent's comment and Raul's reply are good evidence of the point, I think. Come to think of it, Wehwalt has a lot of experience in the points system so he might be able to help my recollections... Bencherlite^Talk 14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

More or less. The death date by itself is going to raise eyebrows. Sometimes it was overlooked for the sake of peace, or to encourage an editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should hear from Dabomb how useful the points are to him. The point system is complicated and not intuitive. If it isn't that useful to Dabomb, we might want to simplify or scrap it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. I was dubious about the changes this summer, but have to say they don't seemed to have caused problems, except that I think this second group of factors are tending to be forgotten. Gerda in particular is doing fine work, but seems heedless of these issues, and frankly unreliable in her assessment of "similarity". This I think ultimately places more work on others, especially Dabomb, & I'd be interested to hear how he feels about the current situation, and officially abolishing the points system. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's my problem of not seeing similarities if a writer is chosen (for a valid reason) just before another one (Stephen Crane) was requested, a medieaval bishop is scheduled although a different one was on TFAR for a week later, or - today - a pilot when there is one waiting in the pending list for 4 Dec. It tells me that Dabomb should not handle those things alone, it seems too much for him. I suggested that several others should have the right to schedule, because I think it's too much for any given person. As of today, we are looking ahead just 2 days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I was making the simple point that you are still doing nominations without attempting to cover the "points" issues such as similar articles in any way. I wasn't thinking of particular examples, though if you want to go there your belief that the Lost operas of Monteverdi was unique and not similar to to other articles on opera sticks in the mind. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not calculate points until I get an answer who needs them for what. I am trying to learn. Lost operas are no operas, no? We don't have most of their music, it's a completely different article content than the usual Tosca or whatever, - points will not be able to do justice to it. - Forget my complaints about only two days ahead, - Dabomb (not Raul) scheduled a few more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at one time there was intense competition for main page slots. However, that has subsided.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Gerda is right I think. One choice was a book review, the other a biography of a writer - not the same according to my understanding of Raul's rules. However, long, discursive arguments on the nomination page are discouraging. IMO Gerda was a breath of fresh air, and for a while I was enthusiastic about helping out with the TFA page, rewriting blurbs, looking for FA nominations etc., but apparently its going back to the same old way. I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out. (Fortunately two of my choices got on the main page before the breath of fresh air was closed down.) It was fun while it lasted. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear that I am right, but it was a bit different: the similarity between book and writer was accepted as not significant, but then Ian Fleming came suddenly (for the new 007 film what I called a valid reason), and that made it writer next to writer, similarity accepted. I like to hear even more that I am like a breath of fresh air, thank you! I am missing so many supportive friends that I would really like to have your support continued, Mathew, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, here's the simple truth. I opposed Stephen Crane so as to avoid another fun event like this one that Maria had to endure. She almost left over it, and if researching and writing good pages is to met with that kind of crap when it runs on the front page, I think that any editor should be shielded from having to go through it more than once in a single month. Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism to stop that kind of behavior, so I opposed the nomination (and there were good reasons: the same editor in a short period, another author in the queue, the similarity to the other piece) and sent Maria email to apologize. Can you now please drop the stick? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you (usually followed by Ceoil) will stop posting after every comment I make. Since you are repeating yourself I will repeat myself. Your comment doesn't make sense and is not a "simple turth". The simple truth is the two articles involved were not in the same "category" according to Raul's rules and could have each been run. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, what two articles are you referring to? Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek or Crane and Ian Fleming? The latter pairing is ultimately why Crane's nomination failed -- after Fleming was nominated, Crane's nom received three or four opposes (including mine) that pointed out that featuring two white male authors on the main page within eight days of one another does not exemplify diversity of subject matter. TK had her personal reasons for opposing Crane's nom, but that's not why the nomination failed -- it was bad timing. I would also like to point out that Crane's nomination should have been removed ages before it was, and then even after it was removed it was accidentally scheduled by Dabomb to appear on November 2nd -- the day after it was nominated for. So, after all of the supporting/opposing and removal from TFAR, it was added to the freaking queue anyway. It's kind of funny, but also fairly annoying. I'm not blaming Dabomb in the least, but obviously there's something wrong with the system if more people can't or simply aren't paying attention. María (yllosubmarine) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - that's what Truthkeeper88's lengthy and repeated objection to my posts on the nomination page addressed. I wasn't involved in anything regarding Ian Fleming, his article didn't enter the thread when I was posting and I wasn't aware of his nomination.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion reminds of my recent comment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You say there were misunderstandings about Crane's nom, but the only one you can point to is TK comparing Crane to Pilgrim in her oppose rationale (which another user agreed with, btw). Again, that's not why the article wasn't scheduled for TFA -- it wasn't scheduled because of Fleming, which multiple people agreed was too similar to Crane. I don't think this one article failing to appear on the main page is a worthy example of a failed system. The nom was up for ages, and TK's objections were only a smattering of what was wrong with it. Perhaps said objection was merely what you took umbrage at? If so, let it be. María (yllosubmarine) 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That was the one I was referring to. Truthkeeper posted other lengthy links on the same subject. I just gave you an example. There was also the horrible ugliness over my Miss Moppet nomination, all because I didn't know about the secret list of FAs that can't ever be on the main page. (That's still not been settled, though I took the heat from Truthkeeper and Ceoil.) From that time on TK put length posts after all my comments. Ceoil supported Truthkeeper and accused me of a conspiracy against another editor that I've never hear of. It was an ugly experience for me. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Mathew. Is saying "I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out." yet another iteration of your "newbie" argument? I'm flabbergasted, because this page requires a minimum of institutional knowledge. Hell, the full instructions are at the top of the page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum after your post above: the Miss Moppet debacle wasn't a picnic for us too. See your own archives: this, this (I didn't know it was possible to frustrate MRG), and this. Many people have tried to help you, and you have either ignored or spurned them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the instructions are on top. Some people may just follow instructions because they are there. I asked what function the points serve (just one example), and got no good answer. I asked Dabomb, who seems the only one for whom they may be of interest. - The process has changed since the rules were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The process has not changed - all that's changed is the number of slots for nominations. You've been repeatedly told the functions that the points serve e.g. Johnbod's comment above: It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. What's the problem with that explanation? Bencherlite^Talk 11:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The definition is fine. I may have a problem with English. "...to bring order to competition ..." means to me that we don't need points if there's no competition. When I propose an article I am offering it for discussion and improvement, always ready to accept that others may think it is not good to run it that day or not at all. No competition. I see that as a change in the process, from competition to discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect, the last few weeks suggest otherwise. This would seem typical[2]. I get you are trying to help, but you are reailroading to a certain extent now. Reform is fine, welcome ever, but obstinacy is not the path. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• [3] Re The Story of Miss Moppet was closed at FAR as a Keep. Comment by Hawkeye7: "The article was nominated for TFA by a newbie editor who was completely unaware of the history. This is likely to recur." MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  And? If it's renominated by someone who doesn't know the history, that's why we have delegates and a director (to deal with the situation). Perhaps folks will begin to respect the hard work they do, and that there is some institutional memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ace Books

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but Ace Books, which was the first FAC I worked on, has been scheduled for 12/6. It's undoubtedly the weakest of the FAs I've worked on, and I wouldn't have been astonished if someone had taken it to FAR. Is it in good enough shape to run? If there is consensus it's OK, I'll leave it be, but if people here think it needs work perhaps it should come off the TFA schedule. I'll commit to trying to improve it if that happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Note - he means December 6th!) Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's short enough, but still an FA. The only issue I see at a (very quick) glance is a bare URL as ref 43. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, some of those refs could be given more information (publication data, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

    I'll do a clean up pass. Another question: this is the first time I've had an FA on the main page on a topic that is still in existence. Would it be OK if I emailed the current Ace Books and let them know about it? I might be able to get more sources from them, and they might be willing to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

    Why not? Bencherlite^Talk 09:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

    Go for it, but give the response a critical reading (i.e. avoid PR talk) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are a few things that rather date it to late 2006 or Feb 2007. Principally the section Ace_Books#Editorial_staff, especially the "2007 - to present" bit which is referenced to something retrieved in 2006. My suspicion is that some unreferenced updates may have snuck in. Also "planned for the remainder of the year" seems to be referring to 2006. Also I'm assuming that they only published in American English and mainly for the US market - a little globalisation might be useful here. ϢereSpielChequers 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How to request

OK, per the section above on the periodic table, I thought I would nominate this article to be TFA. However, I cannot find any instructions on how to nominate the article. I think it would be really helpful for people if there were instructions, as I literally have no idea what I am supposed to do right now. If someone could nominate the article for me, I would be grateful. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the lengthy instructions at the top of the page not enough? That's not sarcasm - a lot of people have tried to make a complicated process as comprehensible as possible, and if people aren't understanding it they need to be improved. Mogism (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the instructions, but nowhere does it say how to nominate it. It very comprehensively covers the criteria, but I can't find anywhere where it says something like "to nominate an article, go to Wikipedia:Sandbox", or "edit section A, add a blurb about the article, and explain why it should be TFA". StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This diff might help. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Or tell me, I am not afraid to make mistakes ;) which article for when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is Periodic table, and would presumably (am I right, StringTheory11?) be for a non-specific date slot. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion, I would conclude the same, that StringTheory11 wants to take care of it, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done; the article is now up! StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would favor just assigning a -5(or so) point value every time an article has been TFA in the past, and then saying open season. However, as Raul has mentioned, this is all moot. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a most interesting suggestion that certainly merits further discussion. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas

1. "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" has been scheduled by me for 17th December, so there are twelve clear days for those who wish to improve the prose further to do so. If anyone has real complaints about it being scheduled, please take them to User talk:Raul654, not here. If he wishes to unschedule it, so be it.
2. Any suggestions for 25th December? FYI, very few TFAs on Christmas Day have had a seasonal link or theme, perhaps just 2011, 2009 and 2004(ish). FYI – 2011 Red-capped Robin / 2010 Lemur / 2009 Christmas 1994 nor'easter / 2008 Robert Sterling Yard / 2007 Flight feather / 2006 Clement of Dunblane / 2005 Ido / 2004 Shroud of Turin.

In other business, the non-specific date slots have gone very quiet... Bencherlite^Talk 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

From the other business: quiet indeed, people missing, and being told that you can have only one nomination at a time (even if it is not your own, all different topics, different authors), - a rule that doesn't make sense to me but here it is, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(Strongly) suggest William the Conqueror. As the date the Norman Conquest was completed, and of his coronation, it has undoubted strong date relevance (his birthdate is lost, and 26 September and 14 October (the other two significant dates in his life; his landing in England and the death of Harold Godwinson) aren't commemorated in any way and are only of interest to historians. Running this on the traditionally low-vandalism day of December 25 would have the additional bonus of showcasing a high-value topic whilst avoiding tying the authors up grimly reverting vandals all day. – iridescent 00:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I or User:PKM have had an art Nativity in the DYK picture slot for the last 3 of the last 4 years, for part of the day anyway, along with other Christmassy stuff, & I will aim to do so again, so the very un-festive William can have the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I had thought of William the Conqueror already, remembering his coronation date (spot the man married to a medieval historian...) but I'm a little reluctant to schedule it when Ealdgyth is rather unwilling. Any other thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am working on expansion of BWV 40 for a Christmas DYK, celebrating Jesus as the conqueror of sin. On that background, William seems not to fit too well, - also we had many English recently. Shroud of Turin would have been much better on Good Friday than for Christmas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't decipher what your're saying, but you seem to be suggesting we should choose TFAs around potential DYKs-- I don't understand that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tough to explain, DYK is only what keeps me busy, nothing to take into account for the choice. - Here the conqueror of sin - there William the Conqueror, that's what would be a bit difficult for me. - How about Auriga (constellation), celestial but not religious? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sandy—"We know DYK is planning to run a number of articles on Christian topics, so TFA ought to be on an unrelated matter to avoid swamping the main page and leading to complaints of Christian bias". (As an aside, every time I look at Wikipedia these days I seem to see you making snotty comments to someone or other. I don't know or care what the background is, but at least 50% of the posts in your recent talk history are reminiscent of Mattisse at her craziest. Unless you're aiming to go down in flames, you might want to ease off.)

@Gerda—I'm aware English isn't your first language, but your comment really makes no sense. No sane person is going to confuse William the Conqueror with Jesus Christ on the grounds that both are conquerors, which is what you appear to be suggesting. And what has Auriga—which has no discernable connection to December 25 and is barely even visible from most of the world at that time—got to do with anything? – iridescent 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sandy (if I may say so): I have no problem with this comment of yours. - I am not afraid that anybody will "confuse" William with Jesus, but I see the term conqueror applied in a religious sense here and in a very worldly sense there. - I tried to find a FA without religious connotations but "stellar", and found Auriga. - If you look at the DYK plans, most are not Christian, just seasonal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clarifying and answering my question in spite of the interference-- that helps. If you can suggest better wording for "I can't decipher what you're saying, but you seem to be suggesting ... " I'm all ears! I still don't know where Iri's DYK quote comes from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote on DYK plans, but 1) I don't know from whence it came (or how I should have been aware of it), nor 2) do I understand why TFA has to be run around DYK already creating a bias. Nor do I understand why Gerda thinks the concept of "sin" would be a basis for choosing TFA (NPOV), but I'm still not understanding her point. So, Iri; fill me in: how is "I can't decipher what you're saying" snotty relative to: "I'm aware English isn't your first language, but your comment really makes no sense. No sane person ... " I'm glad you're aware that English isn't Gerda's first language (I wasn't), but in my book, saying I can't make out what you're trying to say is a lot less snotty than questioning someone's sanity or command of English as a first language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate going off topic, I'm going to second Iri's post. I certainly haven't been an angel either, but the underlying point was the same. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate staying on topic, perhaps you could answer the query I posed to Iri: how would you phrase "I can't decipher what you're saying, but you seem to be suggesting ... " Would you phrase it in terms of someone's sanity or command of English? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There's December 1969 nor'easter, which started on 25 December? Anyone able to get Christmas truce from GA to FA for next year? Edgepedia (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about Christmas truce recently - the version that passed GA was pretty flaky (see notes on talk) and I tried to rewrite it heavily in late 2010, but it's stalled since then. I'd certainly be up for having a go at it next year, as I've gone over a lot of the relevant literature since. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be good to have, but I'm gathering next year is the 99th anniversary ... :)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ah, but we can strike when they're least expecting it! ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here .. I'm always "unwilling" about articles I've worked on going to TFA - it's a major hassle and pain in the arse, quite honestly. That said, they obviously have to go sometime. Billy the Bastard doesn't really have many great date tie-ins - either his coronation date, death date or the date of Battle of Hastings - 14 October. So if folks want a non-religious Christmas day TFA, he's probably the best choice of what's available. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, you are a saint and a scholar. Bencherlite^Talk 13:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Points for non-anglosphere article?

It hasn't really mattered much since there's currently very little competition for specific dates, but I wonder if extra points would be worthwhile for articles that cover things outside the English-speaking world? That might possibly help with some of the diversity issues brought in earlier discussions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• We need the articles first, and there don't seem to be many from non-English areas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Most articles that people want to see run, get run, and so having a couple of extra points may be a nice reward for good work, but it isn't going to be the prime factor in motivation.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I like this suggestion, it's a great idea to encourage diversity. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

TFAR delegates

Following a couple of suggestions, I've started Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates. Bencherlite^Talk 14:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite, you might want to follow the convention we used on the FAC delegate page, which was delegates comment on the main page there, while others comment on talk ... that makes for easier archiving of threaded discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

... which is why the page is headed "A venue for Raul654 and the TFA delegates to coordinate scheduling. Comments/messages from others can be left on the talk page." Bencherlite^Talk 14:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ah, ha :) When I looked yesterday, there were comments on the page from non-delegates. Back on the instructions thing after I string some lights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There was one comment from one non-delegate, now moved to talk. Are you decking the halls with bows of holly, fa-la-la etc? Bencherlite^Talk 15:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And then some! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Bencherlite wants me to put up some lights on the outside of the house this afternoon, and has got Elder Son of Bencherlite to agree that it would be lovely. I'd rather spend the time writing an explanatory userspace essay about the TFAR points system, its purpose and its meaning... Maybe I can write that tomorrow on the train... Bencherlite^Talk 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea for the Mrs (we're all sisters, you know :) Now, stop responding to me ... I've got Work to Do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(watching) we could spend so much more time decking the halls if we didn't care about points and instructions until next year. Without using points, I moved two ideas (railroad, battleship) to later as too similar to articles scheduled. Trying to keep things as simple as possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Action of 1 January 1800

• Action of 1 January 1800

I agree with comments by Bencherlite (talk · contribs) and MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) that Action of 1 January 1800 would be a better choice for upcoming 1 January 2013 as opposed to the article currently nominated. Can Action of 1 January 1800 be substituted, instead? — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

All sorted; Vidya Balan will be TFA on 14th December, her wedding day, instead. Bencherlite^Talk 10:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Overhaul ideas

Wall of text hidden and main points summarised below. BencherliteTalk 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(all changes refer to the main boxes on the top of the page) Change from: Articles suggested here must already be featured articles that have not previously appeared on the Main Page. Articles do not have to be suggested to appear on the Main Page. Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than ten requests on this page for specific dates, and two requests for nonspecific dates. If there are already twelve articles requested and if the article that you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it according to the instructions below. Change to: Articles suggested here must already be featured articles. Articles do not have to be suggested to appear on the Main Page. Requests must be for dates within the next decade that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than ten requests on this page for specific dates with fewer than five points, and two requests for nonspecific dates (see below). All requests must have 1 or more point(s). Requests more than 30 unscheduled days away must have 5 or more points. If there are already twelve articles requested and if the article that you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it according to the instructions below. Comment: The current system seems to penalize those who go out of their way to find an article that would be a truly great FA for that day. Why should they have to wait to post until after the others when there is no true limit to the number of open requests. (Requests further away than 30 days would be hatted to avoid cluttering the page). Under my system, great nominations are rewarded by having a full open slate of dates to be placed in. It would be a shame to lose an article like Richard Nixon (upcoming, 11 points) because we were afraid of "tying up slots" Support change: Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose change: Other Comments: My new points system: Age (since promotion to featured article)(no points) This requirement seems to unfairly punish newer FA's that have gone through a more recent (and I believe comparatively more rigorous)FA nomination. I would like to give every article it's chance, but I think that the newer FA's are generally of higher quality than the old ones. (I may be totally off of the wall also). Support change: Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose change: Other Comments: Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options) Date relevant to article topic: 1 point Decennial or quinvigintennial anniversary (10-year or 25-year multiples): 2 points Date is unusually or extraordinarily relevant: 3 points Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points Centennial anniversary (100-year multiples): 6 points Comment: This is really a great category, and the core of what this project is about. I am nervous about the vague wording of "extraordinarily and unusually relevant" though... Support change: Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose change: Other Comments: Importance (select one of the following four) Widely covered:[2] 2 points Vital article extended 4 points[3] "Vital" article: 6 points[3] Core topic: 8 points Comment: I added some differentiation to hopefully encourage some development in truly critical articles. Support change: Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose change: Other Comments: Contributor history The requestor is a significant contributor to the article, and has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article:[4] 1 point Love this idea. Diversity Subject underrepresented at WP:FA:[5] 1 point Again, love this idea. Main page representation A similar article has not been featured on the main page:[6] Within three months of requested date: 1 point Within six months of requested date: 2 points Deduct points if a similar article was recently featured on the main page: Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points Within one month of requested date: −2 points Comment: I don't think many people are going to look through 6 months of history to get these points, but I don't think there is any harm in offering them. Please speak up if you have an idea to fix this. Previously featured on the main page -5 points per previous time an article is featured on the main page. Comment: A simple change with big implications. The idea is to allow truly special articles on truly special dates to have a second (or more, but this is unlikely) run. It also lets the core articles, who may have had their day in the sun as long ago as 2004, have another run. I want every article to get their day in their sun, hence the five point deduction. Two part question: Support change: Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose change: Other Comments: What should the deduction be? -5 deduction Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Notes 1.^ One point is awarded if there is an obvious and significant connection between the article and the date, for example Earth on Earth Day. Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event. Note that just because an article might be appropriate for a date, for example Chinese language on Chinese New Year's, that does not mean a point should be awarded. The three point relevance is for a truly unusual relevance, and can be bumped down to one at the request of any editor. (the same for a while) Please nominate only one article with less than 5 points at a time. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured articles is here. If there are already ten date-specific requests or two nonspecific requests with less than 5 points, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following: (The remainder is the same as the original) Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please reformat this and make it easier to read? Thank you. --Rschen7754 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, I can't sort anything out of this proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I really don't know how... I am trying, but wikimarkup is not my strong suit... Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that any better? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary

OK, so your main ideas appear to be:

1. Allowing nominations for any date in the next decade that have not been scheduled

   Well, as we don't schedule out of turn, and as a lot can happen in a decade, there is no point in nominations outside a reasonable time scale, and I would say the current timescale is reasonable.

   Ok, maybe decade is too long. The idea is to have it be noticed that Hey! Garfield's 100th anniversary of his assassination is in 3 years and change. We want him to run then, and not now. (Example, I have no clue if garfield is a FA, or when he was assassinated) Tazerdadog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

   No, we are already scheduling out far enough, and scheduling out any farther results in many headaches, as unforeseen events lead to changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Removing the bonus point for old FAs

   That is a long-standing decision to help those articles that have been waiting for a longer time than most for "their day in the sun". If they're not up to scratch, they won't be selected.

   I can see your point here, but I think what should be featured on the main page should be the best available, rather than the oldest. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

   See no reason for this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Add "Date is unusually or extraordinarily relevant: 3 points"

   I don't see the need for this, and even you say that it is "vague wording". You do not give any examples of what might count here that we wouldn't already count as date relevance. And, before you say it, 2012 phenomenon was an exceptional case and didn't need points to be selected.

   Yes. It is vague. I was hoping someone would have a better idea for wording, however it seems more trouble than it is worth. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

   Date relevance is already adequately covered (if anything, we might eventually reduce it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Change core articles from 6 to 8 points, level 3 vital articles from 4 to 6 point, and keep other vital articles (i.e. level 4 only) 4 points

   Not sure that it would make much difference, really - so few vital articles (either level 3 or 4) are eligible TFAs (less than 30 by my count, and two are nominated at present: Nixon and Hawking)

   Maybe I was biased by the number currently nominated. The idea was to stimulate growth in the critical articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

   All vital or core articles already have enough points and are never denied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

5. Allow nominations of previous TFAs with a five point penalty

   No, we've just been through this and Raul has decided that these requests don't belong here and must go to his talk page. Just a few days ago, you agreed that the question was now moot.

   No, already discussed many times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So I don't see the need for any of the changes you propose. Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And then someone came along and said that the idea was interesting. My "The idea is moot" referred to that specifc article. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got multiple edit conflicts trying to reply, and Sandy's said some of what I would have done. If an article is nominated or selected "prematurely", in the eyes of its authors, then they can (and do) say so; nominating or scheduling months or years in advance isn't the answer. I'd be more than happy to see the date range of the /pending template increased to allow people to put down possibilities further in advance than at present, but that's a different issue. As for your idea that giving bonus points to older FAs means that we're not running the best articles: TFAR suggests, and delegates select, a mixture of old and new anyway. If we only selected from the most recent articles to pass FAC, we would miss out on a good balance of articles. Bencherlite^Talk 01:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a dream

User G suggests an article for a day.

The author and User B trim the blurb.

User P looks at the referencing. (P as in peace)

User R improves it. (R as in Reformation)

User T improves the prose.

User N finds a better picture.

User S finds that a similar article was run shortly before.

We park it for later, but have it ready then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's get real. I invite that - before coming here - suggestions are made on WP:QAI/TFA, to be discussed, improved and timed in collaboration. At present, that page holds the suggestions that were rejected here for different reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now widely covered physicist Stephen Hawking can be discussed for his seventieth birthday on 8 January --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to nominate it, please do so at WP:TFAR as usual; setting up a rival discussion page is not a good idea. Bencherlite^Talk 08:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to nominate it, but need help in calculating the points and trimming the blurb, - I thought I should seek that help first elsewhere ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to still act as if you don't know what you're doing around here. That blurb is an acceptable length (as you'd know if you stuck the visible text into a word processor and asked it how many characters were there) and a points calculation shouldn't be too hard for you - the instructions are clear and you've seen it done often enough. If and when you nominate the article properly, remember that the image should not be on the right hand side and the standard image size is 100px. Bencherlite^Talk 09:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I try to ignore "act as if" ;) - to the points: 1 for quinvigintennial (what a word!), 2 for widely covered, "Vital" and "Core" I don't know, it looks like it's the author's first FA (+1) but how would I know for sure? I think the subject is underrepresented, +1, the last physicist seems to have been on 30 May, +2, total of 6 or more, do you agree? This exercise took me 15 minutes, and what do we gain compared to "widely covered physicist on his seventieth birthday? I will nominate him now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For a start, it's his 71st birthday in 2013. So just 1 for birthday; 4 for vital (as he's in the "people" list at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded); it is not your FA so the "first TFA point as nominator" doesn't apply (if it is the nominator's first TFA and if he adopts the nomination, then the bonus point can be claimed); not underrepresented since "physics and astronomy" is not in the list at footnote 4 (because it has more than 50 FAs); 2 for no scientists in the last six months. Total 7. What we gain is a better sense of the reasons for running this article on this date, as opposed to any other article (either nominated or chosen directly by a delegate) or on any other date. I know you think that there isn't competition now that there are potentially 12 spaces on the page, but every article nominated here is still competing for a delegate's attention against the options available from the 1,300+ others at WP:FANMP. Low points = low priority = more likely to be overlooked in favour of a "free pick". Bencherlite^Talk 10:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for helping my math (I prefer to make music), - also for the Vital articles link (learning), - and forgive me for still not understanding how "7 points" would create more attention than "widely covered and vital", a mere number vs. naming what deserves attention. It looks like I should better let the author nominate? That was another point I wanted to discuss before the nomination, but then forgot, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That "vital articles" link should be in the instructions; I'll fix that. Bencherlite^Talk 10:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I suggest not to see the QAI list as a rival but as an offer for preparation, free in time, free in format, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

adding: free for experiment and open to discussion, and (see below) to "plant a seed in the delegates' mind", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

seeds: for 6 January, Epiphany, I return with the idea to have stars but not religious, and pretty brandnew Little Moreton Hall is good any date. Both authors are reliable referencers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope that Stephen Hawking will get the article he deserves, in collaboration, until 8 January, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

New TFAR delegates - Bencherlite and Gimmetrow

I have, in consultation with the existing delegates, decided to appoint Bencherlite and Gimmetrow (aka, Gimmetoo) as the new TFAR delegates. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Kewlz. Congrats all — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Both are excellent picks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Is Dabomb87 continuing as a delegate? --Rschen7754 23:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, he is. While we were discussing the appointments, I asked if any delegates wanted to change roles or resign, and none of them said they wanted to. Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Congrats guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Welcome to the real fun, guys! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Congrats :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • +1 Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all (and to those who left messages on my talk page) for your good wishes. Bencherlite^Talk 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to you, Bencherlite, and to whoever had the good sense to recommend you.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Most splendid developments indeed! :) — Cirt (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Queries

Since we now have four mainpage schedulers, will you all be setting up a centralized page so that we will know who's doing what when and who we should contact in the event of a problem? Will you be dividing the work by day, week, ad hoc, what? The idea that notifications must be done has crept into some discussions (not part of the job IMO); do you all have plans on that score, or if TFAs are assigned well in advance (and the maindate parameter is added to article talk), can we leave that to watchlists? Who is adding maindate? And significantly, will anyone be taking on the task of maintaining this page? The point tallies are never correct, the blurbs are frequently off in various ways, and as of this moment, there is a blurb on the page that should have been removed at least 24 hours ago. I used to check in and correct things as I could, but with four schedulers, do you still want the community to try to update the page, or will you all be doing it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've scheduled five days and will see if I can do some more in a bit. My goodness, it's a slow process to start with - finding the articles, checking for recent similar ones, checking for deadlinks or other maintenance tags, getting a blurb of a decent length, updating the "recently featured" list, protecting the article... Let's hope I get quicker with practice! To answer your questions: (1) I don't know (2) I don't know (3) I'm quite happy to add maindate= to the talk page as I'll have it open anyway, but the bot does this if I forget, I think; I think I'll leave user notifications to the bot, for reasons of time as much as anything. (4) I don't see that the addition of two TFA delegates means that the community has no role in updating this page, because every little helps. Getting ready to schedule, and then scheduling, five articles has taken me 90 minutes FWIW. Bencherlite^Talk 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to The Hardest Job on the Wikipedia (where everyone has an opinion :) I'm hoping you all will set up a coordination page, so the community will know who's doing which days, etc ... unless you all plan to do that here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the FAC delegates have, or used to have, a coordination page? Bencherlite^Talk 14:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct -- it was initially in my userspace, but when I resigned, I suggested the new delegates just move it ... I think it ended up in Ucucha's space ... check his subpages. In the case here, though, you might set up a subpage of this page. It would be where the four of you could coordinate schedules, and where the community would know who to contact in the event the time approaches where there is no TFA scheduled, someone wants to request a change, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

PS, what worked for us is to keep delegate comments on the user subpage, with community comments confined to the talk page ... so threaded comments were archived from talk, but delegate recusals, etc are listed on the main user page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Congratulations Bencherlite! I used to some combing for appropriate articles, checking the state of the article, then the checking for recent similar ones, age of the FA, looking for anniversary dates etc. to get ready for scheduling, check blurb length and copyedit blurbs etc. and did find it quite time consuming, especially the checking for "recent similar". (That's how I found that all of the FA polar articles were scheduled for this year and at least three actually ran, leaving only one, if I remember correctly!) Glad you're aboard to do the work! Five articles in 90 minutes is quite fast I think. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to all, things seem to be coalescing and coming together quite nicely. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

article history

To help a delegate, please see GimmeBot and template:article history, - praise to the other for today's subtle hint on the Main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So, Gerda Arendt and Thumperward have a technical dispute with GimmeBot (one that could affect the bot closings of all FACs); I fail to see any relevance to this page. Please stop spreading disputes unnecessarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather notify to much than too little, and helping the delegate seems needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Spreading a dispute you are having with GimmeBot is not "helping the delegates". I wasn't aware you had technical/bot expertise; is someone accessorizing you? Please confine your discussions to the pages already noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is over. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Somehow I think he's had enough "help" from Jack Merridew and co to last him a lifetime. Raul654 (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Per SandyGeorgia responding to MatthewTownsend: "I realize that we are all tarred with some brush do to Raul's belief that we are part of an attempted coup. Raul's not like that. Really. Seriously. And truly. There's a reason that folks who have worked as his delegates are supportive. I don't know how I can convince you, but that's my word."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Yep. Per Mathew Townsend's ""I realize that we are all tarred with some brush do to Raul's belief that we are part of an attempted coup", that's still right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (raises eyebrows) Your candor is refreshing, Sandy. Shall we take Raul to mean he requires no assistance from anyone associated with Br'er Rabbit in the scheduling of TFAs? --Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Actual assistance - you know, actions that make the job easier for me and my delegates - would be most welcome. The article history brewhaha and Gerda's role in it is most certainly not making things easier. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Your initial comment was more than enough to still any suggestions from this direction. I must ask you to keep a civil tongue in your head where Br'er Rabbit is concerned. Whatever your personal differences, he did much to improve the technical aspect of FA articles. Hundreds if not thousands of referencing errors were caught due to him, to say nothing of the ones not made as he taught FA editors techniques which avoided them. I would go so far to say that Br'er Rabbit did more for the FA projects than anyone else this year. You may feel otherwise, but slanging of Br'er here is not appropriate, nor of any other for the reason that they learned from him and I must request that you refrain from it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC) That you and Gerda hold Merridew/Alarbus/B'rer Rabbit in high regard is pretty well understood; others disagree about the value of their work. That Merridew targeted articles by Gimmetrow is well documented in ANI archives. What I don't understand is: 1) what is Gerda's expertise or interest in bots; and 2) why did she bring a dispute she is engaged in wrt Gimmebot to this page in the interest of "helping delegates"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Please see my previous answers below and on the Village pump, - you said the topic doesn't belong here, did I get that right? I am sorry if I misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC) No derailing please. The difficulty is not with the question of various people valuing work differently, it's with Raul posting things which cause disharmony.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC) No, the difficulty is with the people who are *causing* the disharmony. The article history template is a perfect example of this. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Raul, I avoided this page and WT:FAC for almost a year. That did not stop you from slamming me in multiple venues across the wiki. If leaving this page alone would cause fair and unbiased administration of FA, believe me, I'd happily go. That being said, I think we're on the edge of people saying things other people might regret, so it wouldn't hurt if someone hatted this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we please distinguish my dispute with Gimmetrow because of his revert called "fixing" (something I would not have mentioned here, but you, Sandy, said "dispute") from alerting to a technical discussion on a topic relevant to FA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, bot closings of content review subpages have absolutely nothing to do with TFA requests. Please confine your discussion to relevant pages; the TFA page seems to have been the go-to place lately, but GimmeBot does not affect anything on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, please quit personalizing this topic and focus on the problem with the bot. I for one have no technical expertise and it is really annoying when a bot keeps messing up things. And stop being snarky at Gerda; the issue is that the bot screwed up, Gerda was concerned, she is trying to figure out who can fix it or where it can be fixed, as it does, as you pointed out, close "all FACs, FLCs, GANs, PRs and more while updating articlehistory." So while the discussion happens to be here, it is related, as all TFAs are FAs. Gerda is one of the most AGF editors I've worked with, and she is trying to get the situation fixed. So let's focus on the issue and not personalities. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the technical and other bot knowledgeable folk are now helpfully discussing at the page where this discussion originated and belonged and is more likely to be resolved, but here I will add a correction to the notion expressed on this page about who did what reverting, along with another request that TFA, FAC and FA pages not be used to spread disputes. GimmeBot is not involved at TFAR, and the technical issues are best resolved at VPT where they were first raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, that post does nothing to calm things down. You are accusing others of spreading discord; if you had not posted a completely unnecessary update plus zinger, things might start to calm down around here. Are you sowing discord in the hopes one of the people you've designated as enemy will leave? Will you do the work that productive editor is engaged in? No doubt it would provide you with personal satisfaction, but no one has stepped forward to replace PumpkinSky in his article work, or Br'er Rabbit in his technical work. Oddly, most of the people you slam do an incredible amount of work around the place; you have not nominated or reviewed an article since your return and I question whether you would be up to the task.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, but no idea what you are referring to with "you have not nominated or reviewed an article since your return". Hardly the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll take the rest as deemed more pertinent. Let's see if we can possibly get along.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see on the mainpage here you have likely the same bronchitis I have ... going on ten days, awful, fever, cough, the whole shebang. I hope yours doesn't last that long. On some of the other issues going round on pages where we have mutually engaged, because of a recent development (not involving you or me or anyone typically posting here or to any mutual discussions), I think it's better I not continue to respond. Feel better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Sandy, best wishes to you of course. I am afraid I got it the last day on the ship, I remember sitting on my balcony and my throat feeling sore. And this after carefully avoiding the norovirus. The flu was probably the gift of my partners at trivia (we were very successful :) ). I haven't kept much down since Thursday but I am starting to feel better and hope you are. I agree, let's move on before we shake the foundations of the place.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Sandy: It doesn't belong here but you brought it up, and I think it needs clarification: I reverted the bot's template name in favour of the current name, the bot owner manually reverted me, - this was my first encounter with the FA delegate known under two names. I asked him for a change, he could have said yes, he said no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct; we are saying the same thing. The first revert was yours, not Gimme's as stated here several times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Where would that be, please? Sorry if it adds beans to your flu, but I would like to understand better. Best wishes for your health, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Instructions

Re this edit, I can't decipher what "Nominators unconnected with the article do not need to worry about whether someone else could claim the point." is intending to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I deciphered that by nominating for someone else, I did not ruin that editor's claim for the extra point, in case it was of any interest to anybody, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Still not clear-- could someone repair the wording? If a regular follower of the page doesn't understand the intended meaning, it may be even less clear to a newcomer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Undone my edit. The point I was trying to clarify is that the point is scored only if the person making the request (a) is a significant contributor and (b) hasn't had a TFA before. If I nominate someone else's article, I don't need to worry about their TFA history. So, Gerda, unless you're nominating one of your FAs, you can always skip that step. Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm really confused :) I thought the point for the significant contributor was scored regardless of who made the TFAR nomination. The point of the significant contributor point (!) is to get equal time to all FA writers, regardless of who nominates at TFAR. Did I miss a step somewhere? If we get more clear on this, then we can fix the text you wanted to add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Back ... reviewing the page, I see we now say: " The requestor is a significant contributor to the article, and has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article: 1 point" (emphasis mine), so I do seem to have missed a step (and don't understand why we would deny the point for this reason, but anyway ... ) So, it seems we already have this clarification in the instructions ? Using a concrete example on the page now (Stephen Hawking), are we trying to say that because the significant contributor (Fayed) showed up after someone else nominated, Fayed can now add on the point? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

well, Bencherlite said in reply: "The easy answer is still yes. You can claim the point, but no-one can claim it on your behalf - that's not changed. 8 points.[4] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MT-- I hadn't visited the mainpage here yet. OK, so if that's the case, are those the consequences we intend? It seems like an unnecessary step, when the point will be granted anyway. And then the next step is how to reword the addition to the instructions, since (at least) I couldn't follow the original addition.

While we're on the Hawking nomination, I'm wondering why folks are nominating articles without checking with significant contributors. See the talk page of that article: it was nominated with citation tags, and there's a good deal of work needed to address the issues and prepare it for mainpage (the significant contributor had not re-visited the article for quite some time, apparently, based on the amount of time the tags went unaddressed). It seems that burdening a significant contributor with preparing an article over the holidays is .. ickey ... and inquiring in advance about the citation needed tags might have been courteous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. When I wanted to nominate United States v. Wong Kim Ark, I asked Richwales first. He said he wanted to nominate it to get the extra point for first FA. So that took care of that! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like an unnecessary step to add the additional point on only after the significant contributor requests it. But I seem to remember we had a reason for that ... ?? Need to check archives. It was courteous of you to check with RichWales: I'm not sure we need to codify that in already lengthy page instructions, but the amount of work that the Hawking article needs is troubling, and that it has to be done over the holidays is ickey. It would be nice of folks to check with significant contributors-- even more so when the article has maintenance tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

well it says in the instructions: "Regardless of how a previous TFA was chosen, the bonus point is only for those who have never had any FA on which they have significantly worked appearing as Today's Featured Article." But how does the nominator know if the editor has never had a FA? I found out because RichWales told me. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

also, I'm not sure what this means: "Regardless of how a previous TFA was chosen," - what does it mean "a previous TFA"? It's unclear to me. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How a previous TFA was chosen refers to whether it went through the TFAR page, or not-- that means, even if a delegate scheduled it independently of a request here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Link to the brief discussion where Raul proposed and adopted the current wording - previously anyone could claim the point on a TFA newbie's behalf, since Sept 2012 only the TFA newbie him/herself can claim it. And so the the answer to the question Mathew posed (But how does the nominator know if the editor has never had a FA?) is this: the nominator doesn't need to know, because the point can't be claimed by random passers-by nominating the article, and that's been the position for the last two years. Bencherlite^Talk 14:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for nominator point clarification

Ok, so the key words from Raul were (emphasis mine):

The purpose of the this-is-my-first-TFA point is that if someone wants to see their work on the main page, and it's their first time, they should get higher priority. I don't see the value in using it to reward people who are inactive and probably won't notice. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text in instructions was:

Regardless of how a previous TFA was chosen, the bonus point is only for those who have never had any FA on which they have significantly worked appearing as Today's Featured Article. Nominators unconnected with the article do not need to worry about whether someone else could claim the point.

So, we need to clarify the "regardless of how previous chosen" per MT's question, and clear up the point of the point. How about:

The bonus point is only awarded upon request to significant contributors who have never had any FA on which they have significantly worked appearing as Today's Featured Article, regardless whether the previous TFA was chosen via this Requests page or independently by a delegate. This point is only available to significant contributors upon request; other nominators who are not significant contributors to the article do not need to be concerned with this point.

Or something like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And, a sample in case others are still confused (as I was). I am a significant contributor to Samuel Johnson, which has appeared at TFA. I am a significant contributor to Tourette syndrome (TS), which has not appeared TFA. If I request TS here, I don't get the point-- I have already had an article TFA. If someone else requests TS here, they don't have to worry whether I get the point. If I hadn't already had a TFA, I could request the point if I nominate TS or if someone else nominates TS (they better not until I'm ready for coprolalia-related vandalism). Since I have already had a TFA, I can't request the point. Other nominators don't have to concern themselves with whether I get my point. No one has to worry about whether Samuel Johnson was chosen via a request at TFAR or assigned independently by a delegate. Is that about it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we could probably lose one (or both) of the "upon request"s but otherwise it's fine by me. Bencherlite^Talk 10:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How's that (struck one)? Since no one else has commented, how about you just add it in whenever you think it's ready? I'm still busy decking the halls ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"The bonus point only applies when an editor who has not been a significant contributor to any TFA (whether run pursuant to a request, or scheduled directly by a delegate) nominates or co-nominates at this page an article he has significantly contributed to."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That differs from the example on the page, where the point was granted to a significant contributor after the fact, even though s/he was not the nominator or co-nominator ... in other words, if the significant contributor shows up post-nomination, they can request the point. Also, pls avoid the pronoun "he" :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that a first nominator should get the point even if they have contributed to other articles; being lead on a TFA is like taking point in combat, you have to do more than merely work on the article, you have to draft the TFA itself, deal with the whole approval process and it's not for the faint-hearted. It's a learning curve, and if we want to encourage people to expand their horizons in this area by offering the point at all, seems to me any first time nominator should get the point, regardless. (yes, full disclosure: this applies to me, I've not been lead on a TFA nom, ever, but have contributed to at least three TFAs in the past.) Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done No further discussion (since 11 December), so I installed a version that combined Wehwalt's suggestion and my suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what the bonus gives to whom once a delegate schedules directly? No more bonus/priority seems to be needed in such a case. What did I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Instructions "massively changed" ?

Wehwalt mentioned that "the instruction set had been massively changed without significant discussion". I wasn't around most of October, so I may have missed something. Here is a diff of all of the changes to the instructions since October 8 (two months). Could someone explain what the massive changes are? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The number of non-specific nomination slots was increased from two to five, and the number of specific date nominations allowed was increased from ten to twelve; but Raul subsequently dropped the non-specific back to two again, resulting in little net change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of what you mention was only copyediting for things that had been missed in earlier updates; as far as I can tell, the only change was dropping the non-specific slots from five to two, and accurately adding that back to the instructions to the 12 (which wasn't there before at all). Since even the two slots have not been used in the six weeks or so that I've been watching, there seems to be no net change. At any rate, I'm still not understanding what is "massively" changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

For a while there was a lot of community engagement and participation (say around in October). That's when many were nominated for the non-specific slots. Then there was a clamp down regarding an insistence in using the points for nomination and a confusion over what the instructions meant (like what a "similar" article was etc.), plus Raul appointed two new delegates and the instructions were changed (reducing the non-specific slots etc.), so community participation backed down, leaving it to the delegates since that seems to be what Raul wants.

Complaints have been made in the past regarding the difficulty of understanding the instructions/points etc. to no effect. Agree with Tazerdadog that's more trouble than it's worth to try to clarify the instructions. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the editors active in October has walked off in a huff after failing an RFA, and another has since been (re)banned; that will explain some of it, I'd think. Perhaps the fact that TFAs were scheduled much closer to their appearance date then encouraged people to nominate articles in the hope of a "speedy" reward and / or to help the hardworking-but-pushed-for-time Dabomb. As to your point about "confusion", sometimes there can be legitimate disagreement as to whether two articles are "similar", but this does not mean that the rules are faulty; it is then a matter for discussion so that the reasons in favour and against running a particular article now or another time can be aired. For the record, I would welcome more non-specific date nominations since every article that someone else checks and nominates means less work for the delegates! Bencherlite^Talk 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make you happy, and I was ready to help, but now I was told that the rules require only one nomination at a time. That makes sense to avoid one editor promoting several of their articles, but I don't think that is a helpful as long articles by different users on different topics are concerned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, as it happens. That particular instruction is one that I think has less relevance now than it did in the days when there were only five date slots (and no non-specific date slots). Bencherlite^Talk 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

... plus Raul appointed two new delegates and the instructions were changed (reducing the non-specific slots etc.), so community participation backed down, leaving it to the delegates since that seems to be what Raul wants. Nowhere did Raul say that or anything like that (nor is it true whether he was misunderstood or not). He reduced the non-specific slots for the same reason I stated: they weren't being used.

As to the rule about one nominator at a time, and the complexity of the rules, please remember that the rules grew so complex because the page was being abused of by nominators wanting it their way, to heck with the rest. If we had nominators putting up non-date-specific requests that were for well prepared articles, without tags and other issues as we've seen lately, with well written blurbs-- in other words, reducing the load on the delegates and showing the community can do the job well-- that would be when we know it's time to revisit that rule. So far, we haven't had that situation.

The instructions are too difficult; they got that way because any relaxing seemed to lead to "I want my popsicle, darn it". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So far we had that situation, for (random) example, 4 any-date slots filled, not to perfection, but trying to help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any situation related to FA/TFA where you are capable of anything but assuming bad faith in the actions and intentions of the plebians, Sandy? Resolute 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? There's no bad faith in there, and if there were, the answer would be yes, the dedicated participants and reviewers at FAC and TFA are what make the process work. Without them, we wouldn't have FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The limit was raised to five non-specific dates on 31st August and in September, 24 articles were nominated using that route. At times there were four or even five articles nominated, as Gerda notes. Of the 24, only a few didn't run (and one that didn't run at the time ran in December instead) and the reasons for non-selection tended to be withdrawal of the nomination after a suggestion of better future dates rather than opposes based on article similarity or article (dis)quality. The blurbs, on the whole, ran as put forward, sometimes after copyediting on the page (by me and no doubt by others too) to get them more into house style for Dabomb's use. Gerda's blurbs, in particular, improved as time went on, if she doesn't mind me saying so. It is perhaps unfortunate that Raul reduced the number of slots during a lull in nominations, because they had been quite busy before then. Perhaps the way to get them increased, as Sandy says, is to use them. I have this data to hand because I was gradually building a log of TFA nominations since the limits were raised to 10 and 5, to see what lessons could be drawn, but I'd got as far as the end of September when Raul decreased the limit to 2 non-specific dates, which is why I don't have October's data. Bencherlite^Talk 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for filling in the facts and the additional clarifications, Bencherlite. What led me to respond to the post was (again) seeing (mis)information (even if likely unintended) about Raul on this page. It's interesting that attempts to keep the facts straight frequently lead to charges of bad faith, when there was plenty of that going around before Raul appointed new delegates and TFA issues ended up at ANI. We don't have any reason to think that if the page is being used responsibly, the number of slots for the community to schedule might not grow again in the future. What was and remains "off" about the issues that went on during the summer and fall is the inconsistency and the double standard: some folks wanted to hold Raul and the delegates responsible for problematic articles appearing TFA, while at the same time we see Supports from the community for articles with clear deficiencies, including articles nominated here by non-significant contributors that needed a lot of work to be mainpage ready. That's inconsistent; can't have it both ways (blame the delegates for problems while the community picks articles with same or worse issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

yes, Raul's reduction was most unfortunate. Gerda brought a lot of joy and verve to the nomination process. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but it seemed that the involvement of relatively new people wasn't welcomed and we backed off ("the page was being abused" attitude). Discussions about what were "similar" articles weren't clarified; decisions were made, based on one person's input (who seemed to drop in from no where and wrote lengthy posts more concerned about her personal problems and concerns). The ultimate decision was made behind the scenes.

For a while I looked for eligible nominations, edited blurbs, checking their length etc. - that's the kind of work I like to do - but once I got the feeling that only my behind-the-scenes work was tolerated and my opinions were not, I stopped doing it. I know I had the feeling (perhaps wrongly) that Raul didn't welcome our participation.

Rules like the one nomination at a time were invoked and the wonderful number of "nonspecfic slots" were reduced. True, Raul said nothing, offered no explanations, but he indicated that the appointing of new delegates would take care of the problems. He gave no indication that he welcomed the community's participation but rather I got the opposite feeling - that he was trying to quash it. Bencherlite is wonderful to work with, a real joy, but I felt like the boom had been lowered suddenly with the rule changes, slot reduction, and "one nomination at a time" enforcement. There was no indication, except from Bencherlite, that we were anything but pests to the TFA process. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from me being wonderful (!), I'm not sure I'd agree with all of that; e.g. I think I know who you're referring to as the editor who wrote about her personal problems, but as far as I can recall she was one participant in one particular discussion of note, not someone routinely administering the thumbs-up/thumbs-down to nominations. And having said that.. going back over the history of the last few months in this way is perhaps not, dare I said it, the most constructive use of our time, particularly if it's going to lead to further discussion / speculation about who wants/wanted what done and why. This page has done well with a mixture of new and old hands. Community input helps to legitimise the decisions taken by Raul and the delegates as well as easing the workload for us. Perhaps sometimes some of the new hands need to appreciate that things are sometimes done a certain way because that's what has worked in the past (and/or that's what has been adopted to avoid problems that have been experienced). Having said that, not ever "certain way" of doing things is incapable of improvement, and sometimes some of the old hands (me included, I'm sure) need to ensure that this page still remains helpful and accessible, and that we don't adopt (consciously or not) an attitude that discourages new recruits to the TFAR process. All nominations are welcome; the instructions appear intimidating but aren't as bad as they look (at least we can set them out briefly, unlike the rules and regulations at DYK for instance); every edit that helps to improve a blurb, or points out problems with an article's quality or the proposed date etc is welcome too. Not every article proposed will be selected, but it never hurts to plant a seed in the delegates' mind that article X might be worth running a month or so later or when the particular quality issues have been fixed... Bencherlite^Talk 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The sudden influx was connected in the mind of Raul and others with the earlier attempted coup at FAC, and I'm sure there was a connection as far as some of the new faces here were concerned. I hope things have settled down now & things can proceed in a less factional athmosphere. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Mathew, regarding the one nomination at a time rule, and "Gerda brought a lot of joy and verve to the nomination process", I suggest this page might be ready to relax that rule if, for example, one repeat nominator carefully reviewed nominations for citation needed tags and other significant issues. I was not around for this "joy and verve" era that you mention, but when I did become active again in November, I found that four of the nominations on the page were from one nominator; allowing room in the allocated slots for wider participation seems to be a good thing. We have seven slots full now, [5] with a good variety of nominators, which seems helpful to restoring the vitality of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the way "new faces" are treated does not encourage participation. That Bencherlite had to do a "search" on the talk threads back to 2009 to find a discussion that would explain a particular "point" shows how inbreed the culture is here. The "instructions" and "points" are ridiculously complex. My "Miss Moppet" nomination was treated with a flurry of self-righteous anger when nothing was clear about it and it hadn't even been through FAR. Thanks to Bencherlite for marking those FAs that have been determined by Raul to be unfit for TFA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, so you are saying that Raul is justified in turning down ideas simply because they come from editors whom he deems "disloyal"? How does that attitude advance the project? I must admit that I don't see how a leader deciding that some should be "out" and not have their ideas considered is likely to decrease factionalism. Make it worse, I'd think, since it leads to feelings that even if the disfavored came on board, that they would still be treated with anger and derision.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I never liked either the increase in date-specific nominations from 5 to 10, or the increase in non-specific nominations from 2 to 5. But, on the chance that I was suffering from Not invented here-ism, I decided to give it a chance. After six months or so, I still didn't like either, but at least the newly added date-specific request slots are being used. The same could not be said of the newly added non-specific ones, so I got rid of them. Frankly, I bent over backwards to be fair to the proposal. Raul654 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the instructions were changed on August 12 and August 31, per [6] in both cases by Noleander. They were changed back on November 22, about three months later.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that you changed it without asking proponents for a rationale or the opportunity to advocate, I can think of several ways you might bend over further, if it's of help.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

On the "similar" discussions and "new" vs "old" hands, the problems with the "similar" point have gone on since the point was initiated. The instructions are complex, and the similar point has always created problems, but finding other workable solutions has been difficult ... I don't think any of those issues relate to "new" or "old", but the difficulties of figuring out how to optimally give the community a role in scheduling, while accounting for everyone's wants and needs, and diversity on the mainpage.

I do wish everyone would remember that being a TFAR delegate has to be (well, it is IMO, which is why I would not do it for all the tea in China) one of the hardest jobs on Wikipedia (you can't please anyone, and you're not allowed a mistake); support the delegates instead of tearing them down which makes their jobs harder. Since TFA is criticized when deficient articles are run, that means check the articles before you nominate or support them-- otherwise, what's the delegate to do in the face of community consensus?

I don't think anyone, "old" or "new" intends any bad faith here, but it is a very hard job, as those who have been delegates know. Perhaps sometimes folks say things in good faith, no? Raul did not remove the slots because he's a "dictator" as claimed; everyone here wants smooth functioning of this page and for everyone to be happy-- that is a very difficult balancing act. Bencherlite is doing it well; let's hope he doesn't burn out, 'cuz this job is a killer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, if by "marking those FAs that have been determined by Raul to be unfit for TFA" you mean the ones I've highlighted in red at User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad, those are *not* determinations by Raul but effectively a "note to self" based on comments left by various people at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page (all welcome to join in there, btw) that some very old articles will need a good check if nominated or if I think about selecting them.

I don't actually see that criticising a process as "inbred" because something hasn't needed explanation for three years is at all helpful or constructive, personally. I know you were annoyed about the Miss Moppet nomination, but that was an exceptional situation and it doesn't help to bring it up repeatedly as if it was the standard approach to things at TFAR. Please, every, can we move along? If people can think of ways to make the system run more smoothly, please say so, but please work on the basis that the system has probably ended up doing "x" for a good reason, rather than work on the basis that those editing this page over the years have deliberately devised some silly system to deter outsiders.

Thank you to various people (on wiki and by email) for your kind words and support, which is appreciated. TFA has a couple of tricky days with "Mr Hankey" today and a video game tomorrow. This is clearly the end of the world as we know it... which by coincidence is scheduled for later in the week, to be marked by 2012 phenomenon and Worlds End State Park. Bencherlite^Talk 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite, I appreciate your efforts to paint a happy face on this, but the fact remains, TFA was being run on a community basis, and run well, but Raul didn't like it because a) it did not require his suzerainty, b) he deemed those who were active with it aligned with the editor he abused his tools regarding in the summer, and c) it wasn't his idea. He did not do it for thoughtful reasons, gently placing an erring community back on the proper path due to his superior knowledge and judgment. He did it because he wanted to. It may or not be the "hardest job on Wikipedia", but there is no indication that I can see that the effort Raul puts into it greatly exceeds nil. Certainly he did not spend the period after he got slammed at AN/I working hard on a difficult job, or at least not this one anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I'll withdraw it. But let me just say what is obvious: there are hard feelings over this process, such as it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bencherlite, thank you for your clarifications. I had no way of knowing who decided what FAs were to be highlighted in red, marked as unfit. Just as I had no way of knowing "who" reduced the "nonspecific date" slots, or who decided the similar article issue. And I had no way of knowing that the Miss Moppet nomination was unusual. Or whether there are other such mines fields awaiting. These decisions/incidents were not explained. We down here have no way of knowing what Raul decides or what others decide or what's going on. I realize that we are all tarred with some brush do to Raul's belief that we are part of an attempted coup. Perhaps if he were around more, interacted with us more, there wouldn't be a feeling of an absent landlord who every couple months or so (there were four months with no comment from him, I believe) makes an announcement visible to us. How are we to divine who decides what? And how are we to know the obvious deeply rooted grudges and antagonisms that are apparently the history of TFA? I certainly had no clue in the early, joyful days of my participation, or that individual FA editors would be called out and named, and that past missteps/disagreements are reified and held against one. I'm probably doing myself in my mentioning these things, but how are we to learn? MathewTownsend (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Matthew, the Miss Moppet situation is unique; it's unlikely to repeat, and as far as I know, there is nothing like it. It happened out of a series of unique problems, unlikely (let's hope!) to ever happen again. I realize that we are all tarred with some brush do to Raul's belief that we are part of an attempted coup. Raul's not like that. Really. Seriously. And truly. There's a reason that folks who have worked as his delegates are supportive. I don't know how I can convince you, but that's my word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To SandyGeorgia: I support Bencherlite, the only delegate that I've had any contact with or who posts here. It's the older FA editors who pop in with old agendas, post at length, seem angry and aren't willing to openly discuss but rather demand, that are difficult to deal with on these pages. Must we new people be involved in what seems to be an ugly history? Or can we side step it? (But to do so, we need information to avoid being pounced upon.) MathewTownsend (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC) You walked into quite a unique mess with the Moppet thing. The "older FA editors" only knew about it because most were there, and also knew it wasn't good to talk about it ... because the real problem is that the sockmaster takes delight in continuing problems. It really would be best to let it go. If you'd rather email about it, that would be cool. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Mathew, please drop the stick. This has gone far beyond any semblance of AGF. I believe I've apologized once on your talk in regards to Miss Moppet and do so again here. PS - I've not been around much and haven't had the opportunity to tell Bencherlite that I'm delighted he's been chosen as a delegate. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Truthkeep88, please stop the constant criticism when I'm just trying to figure things out. Stop the WP:Battleground mentality and drop the stick yourself. Your explanation didn't make sense to me, since other senior editors disagreed with you and said the article could be redelved (or whatever it's called) and appear on the main page. So I never received a full explanation all in one place Perhaps you don't want newer editors here. That's certainly the impression you give with your comments and inflexible opinions. Ceoil has backed off and even complemented me on my talk page. And thanks to Sandy for explaining the situation to me. Truthkeeper88, your explanations are not very clear and your unfriendly and unforgiving attitude is not appreciated, nor are your accusations. I'll ask you to please not reply to my comments, as it creates an unpleasant atmosphere - unless you would like me to stop trying to help out here, which I pretty much have anyway due to such interactions as those with you. Best wishes and hope all your problems, family matters and illnesses are resolved. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, it was a situation that no one knew the right answer to-- that may explain some of the confusion. We had experienced eidtors and copyvio people saying different things; it was a uniquely messy situation unlike any other I've encountered. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with footnotes in The Notorious B.I.G.

OK, can we please keep this talk page as free from external dramas as possible, please? We only barely have room for our own drama here as it is... Thank you so much. BencherliteTalk 23:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see Talk:The_Notorious_B.I.G.#Problem_with_two_different_date_formats_used_in_footnotes. There are two different formats for dates used in the footnotes. Its confusing to the reader and can't be right, IMO. Please can someone fix? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC) This article has dead links and some "not in citation" tags. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC) MT, remember WP:BB? Any reason you can't just fix some of this yourself? Montanabw(talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) yes, they are reverted if I do. Perhaps Montanabw, if you fixed them you would have better luck. Any reason you can't be constructive and remember WP:BB? You could also fix the dead links and the "not in citation" tags, given the extraordinary article writing abilities you've told me you have. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I don't actually give a rat's ass about the topic, I just noticed in passing by here that you were telling other people to do things that you appeared unwilling to do yourself, which is a pattern I have observed with you (along with insulting people, then claiming they are insulting you; making false accusations, then repeating them across multiple pages, etc.); but if this time you are actually being reverted by a troll or something, then I apologize for this single situation. As far as article writing, do note that when you compare me to you, plus been on a team for multiple FA and GA articles (have you written ANY?) then yes indeed. I think I have a pretty damn good record, definitely better than yours, and I most certainly don't need your insults across half of wikipedia. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

New template: TFAFULL

A word of explanation about an earlier change I made to the nominated articles. Typing {{TFAFULL|Bird}} at the end of the blurb will give you (Full article...) without having to worry about putting in the ...s, the '''s or the [[ and ]] in the right place. It also means that if we decide to change the main article link display, as happened earlier in the year, we only have to make one change. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

I know I'm not often seen around the "FA" or "TFA" stuff, but I have a request. Could we please call a cease fire for the next week or two? The stage has been set for a long time, and I know there are certain "groups" that like to support each other, but for just a short time - could we call a truce? There's good people getting caught in the crossfire here, and as much as I respect that everyone has their own view of what is right or wrong - a break from the sniping, snide comments, innuendo, and snark might let everyone spend some real life time enjoying a holiday season. For myself, I wish you ALL a wonderful season no matter how you choose to celebrate it. — Ched :  ?  22:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear, and I'll echo the holiday comments. Enjoy the season, everyone. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be a comfort and a joy! I'm going to be offline most of the next four days anyway, haven't even started my Xmas shopping. Cheers to you, Ched! Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A Christmas Truce (or Solstice, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah) is a great suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, a Christmas Truce is a great idea, but it requires all snipers to lay down arms. I'm happy to do it, but it's got to be everyone. If it happens, peace and joy on earth. If not, then it is the fault of those who would not drop the stick. We need to hear from some people on this. Provocative actions need to be avoided, and statements.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the devotion to an idea or an ideal .. but who will be the first to lay down their arms? — Ched :  ?  01:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I sang for Christmas, BWV 40 and excerpts from the Christmas Oratorio ("verbannet die Klage", - "ban complaining") and am ready to talk about arguments instead of why some people share the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend

Closed. Please find something else to do. BencherliteTalk 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have reverted, on this page and the project page, SandyGeorgia's ill-advised tagging of MathewTownsend's contributions as "blocked socks". We do not do badges of shame here, Sandy is not a delegate with claimed power to censor this page, and even if she was, the AN/I thread following Raul's action against Br'er in August found that COI applies even to him. I would suggest that we let it go at that. That being said, I am grateful for the contributions that Mat did here in the time back, and I wish Mat good fortune and peace. I hope we can all join in that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I join in that, will miss content contributions, personal encouragement and the good will to change to more open discussion here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Wehwalt, I have a question: as an administrator do you fully condone comments such as these? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I am not running for office, nor does the question involve an administrative action I made, so I would respectfully give you back the question in wonder that you think that asking it would decrease the drama quotient.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You are an administrator, you have this page on watch, that was a blatantly incivil comment after many such on this very page, and nothing was done. If admins don't do anything about comments such as those, then who does? I'd just returned from a funeral when I found that and frankly at this point have zero desire to edit here again, but if you want me to decrease the drama quotient, then so be it. That answers the question. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I actually have ceased to watchlist FA pages due to the personal attacks. I check them now and then out of self-defense. I am very sorry for your loss, it sounds like a terrible way to begin the New Year. That being said, we owe it to much-vaunted content contributors not to mock them as they go.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC) That's just an abrogation of duty. You have tools and AGF is a pillar. Look at my contrib history and show me where I showed a battleground mentality with regard to MT. I apologized not once but twice, here above, and on MT's page [7]. There was no battleground mentality and no basis for such vitriol. Yet still nothing was done about those comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Any stick does to beat a dog with. Why it should be thought I should police WT:TFA/R when there are a director and delegates who are administrators, and who are not me, and when the director has made very plain his views towards me, is beyond me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) This is a new year. It's well past time for this stuff to stop. Wehwalt, please take 24 hours away from TFAR and let it go. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Gimme, thanks for the advice, and so I've pulled my article from TFAR per it. Please understand that one-sided advice towards people you have been in conflict with is pretty ill-advised.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You don't need to pull Nixon, if that's what you mean. I was going to schedule it. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Grabbing gifts while pushing away the giver is very ill-advised. And you are involved with respect to me. That means you can't schedule any nominations which I make, either to accept them or to turn them down.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Really? That's your position? Well, Bencher seems to have scheduled it anyway. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I'm aware. And that is the community's position, as expressed when Raul misused his tools regarding Br'er Rabbit this past August.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I started scheduling (using multiple tabs) before realising that Nixon had been removed, then saw this thread. I will now apply archive tags to this in the hope of calming things down a little... BencherliteTalk 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification discussion of "Adding requests"

My sincere apologies to Prioryman, Bencherlite and Ruby2010. Per this discussion on my talk, I have reinstated two noms that I incorrectly removed per the three rules under "Adding requests".

Here is the current text:

Adding requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there are already ten date-specific requests or two nonspecific requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following: If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value. If item 1 doesn't apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points articles outside that date may have. Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the article with the latest date. If the tied articles are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option.

I first moved that piece of instructions in with this edit in July 2008. Archived discussions show that Bencherlite is more correct than I am, but regardless of how we got here, the community should attempt to clarify intent in the current environment (that is, we used to have only five noms, now we have twelve). The history of that section begins here in archives and there is more at Speedy Deletions. Archives show that the intent was to allow for better/more page turnover when a nomination was stale or had little support, but I agreed in those discussions that we should leave a nom up until it needed replacement, or leave it to the delegate/director to interpret. In other words, my memory was incorrect and Bencherlite is right that we had agreed not to remove unless a slot was needed; at the time we had decided that noms meeting these three conditions were only removed when something else replaced them.

So, reading through archives, I am convinced that my removal was incorrect per the history and instructions, my apologies to all, but my current concern is that we are scheduling items with negative points and marginal support; if someone else had wanted the slot earlier, that article had met the 50% oppose much earlier. Are we discouraging nominations by leaving stale nominations or nominations without a significant chance on the page longer than necessary? In the case of Feb 14, it appears the Phallic museum has little chance for Feb 14, and it would have a better slot at using one of the non-specific date slots. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot, discouraging more noms with these instructions that we came up with four years ago, while we have a new environment now? Although I was wrong, I'm wondering if we should revisit. The end result here is that we seem to have exhausted our supply of naval aviators killed in action, and we are disrespecting their families with an emphasis on their date of death (rather than other accomplishments), yet we are running those articles with little support anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Several points in that post...

1. Personally, I think that there is no need (other than obviously wrong nominations e.g. of a non-FA, or IAR cases) to remove someone else's nomination when the page is not full and the date is not scheduled. (Obviously I will be proved wrong now I have said this...) Discussion of rival articles for the same date, for instance, may well be worth continuing. Points and/or levels of support can change (as has happened for both the nominations that you removed, in fact!) and recent months show that "failing" nominations tend to be removed by their nominators for another time without too much difficulty if that's suggested nicely. If they're not, well, delegates can probably sort the wheat from the chaff.

2. We still have a number of aviators (and members of the other armed services, from various countries) killed in action but not yet TFA, so I don't think we're in much danger of running out. More seriously, I also don't remember seeing complaints about the timing of the various TFAs in question at the usual venues, so we may be over-worrying about this point.

3. As for whether concentrating on their day of death is inappropriate, it's an argument but not the only view, as the discussions have shown.

4. As for whether it was appropriate to run Jesse L. Brown, despite the -1 point tally, I think it was (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have done it) because points aren't everything, again as the discussion shows. That is the only article I have scheduled with negative points, I think.

5. If you (or anyone) has views on how the page can be improved or the instructions streamlined, there's a clean talk page below (at the time of writing...). Bencherlite^Talk 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke

Pleasantly surprised to see it scheduled for 16th :) thanks! I've just managed to track down and confirm a PD sketch of Clarke, which I have added to the TFA blurb. Could someone please check this and make sure I've added it correctly? --Errant ^(chat!) 17:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem - our chief weapon is pleasant surprise... pleasant surprise and fear... fear and plesant surprise... Our two weapons are fear and pleasant surprise... and ruthless inefficiency... (etc). (Image placement is fine, thanks.) Bencherlite^Talk 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Using a sound in a TFA blurb

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2013 - for First inauguration of Barack Obama, instead of an image, I've used the audio clip from the article of Obama being sworn in by John Roberts during the ceremony. You may remember that Roberts didn't follow the precise constitutional wording and so it was redone later as a precaution, as the blurb mentions. (The clip happens to be a Featured Sound - remember them?!) Thoughts on whether this is a good or a bad idea are welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure this has been done before, so it should be fine to happen again. GRAPPLE X 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• DYK's done it before (I think), so I have no issue. Yeah, I remember featured sounds... (Signpost coverage here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DYK's done it before using {{DYK listen}} (but not very often, probably no more than 6 or 7 times to judge from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DYK listen). Bencherlite^Talk 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There we go. OTD seems to have used it a bit as well. I don't see any issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I really need to get round to writing "Wikipedia:Today's Featured Article's unusual moments" (to record the odd occasion when TFA has run two articles in one day, or when articles have appeared twice, or when non-FAs have trespassed into the TFA slot, or when sounds have been used instead of images...). Bencherlite^Talk 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Don't forget the one that appeared two days in a row! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think this is a great idea - thanks for trying it out. Our media handling has improved a lot in the last year or so, and it'll be interesting to see what the reader response is. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've done it several times before. (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 15, 2010, for example). I've rewritten the blurb to match the format used previously. Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I'll use that technique next time - if there is a next time! Bencherlite^Talk 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical question

I want to nominate ? (film) for TFA on 31 March, it's debut. During the FAC an editor told me that he could not open the page using Google Chrome, and was only able to review after using an HTML escape (i.e. %3F). Does anyone else have this issue? How can we fix it to make sure people can read the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking to ? (film) (appropriately piped) from the mainpage would seem to resolve that particular problem - we can make sure the inbound link presented to the readers uses the encoded form. I don't have Chrome to hand, but I'll check tonight and see what happens. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can read the article using Chrome with no apparent problems. Crisco's original link worked for me, too. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks everyone. Kinda confused as I never had any problems with it (although the page views tool hates the film, it seems...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• To quickly confirm this, reading the article in Chrome (well, Chromium 22.0) works fine, but trying to load the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?_(film) just falls back to the main page. Interestingly, MediaWiki seems to convert the wikitext ? into %3F in the rendered page, so it's only links in from outside Wikipedia that would have the problem. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• *deer meet headlights* So essentially an in-wiki link should be fine, but for external links we need to use %3F? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lutosławski centenary

Greetings. I originally posted this at Raul654's talk page, but he has been off-wiki, and so I am posting here for input in his absence. I know the rule is generally that no featured article should appear on the main page more than once. But it is Witold Lutosławski's centenary on Jan 25: although that article was on the main page on November 6, 2005, that was over seven years ago, the article is still featured, and I, its primary author, am still around to "look after" it. What do you think - is it worth a nomination? Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article looks to be in need of some in-line referencing. I doubt it would survive long on the main page before some maintenance tags were added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. We had that at discussion at FAR. I thought the result was a ridiculous overuse of footnotes, so I did this, which was a huge improvement. It has been deemed an acceptable compromise in discussions subsequently, particularly since the hard-to-read version with 103 footnotes is readily available for reference. Since no-one has said "no", I am going ahead with a nomination in the spirit of WP:IAR, because I think putting the article on the front page on the centenary would be a significant feather in Wikipedia's cap. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No one needs to say no when the instructions are clear; please remove the request. Further, I agree with Crisco on the likely outcome of featuring that sort of undersourcing on the mainpage, and submit that a 2007 FAR (five years old) is of little use here. I suggest a new FAR might be in order to review the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Based on the note at the top of the page, it seems that they've done non-standard referencing similar to Great Fire of London (which I had tried to tag but was reverted, about four months back) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Crisco. I think you're referring to a line in the article that mentions four different books, no page nos? Unless I'm missing something else, that does not meet FA citation requirements (we're asking our readers to read four books to verify text?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Agree, doesn't match the criteria and should be footnoted / given page numbers. Just pointing out that it's not the only one with... suboptimal... referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Raul doesn't seem to be jumping at the opportunity to refeature this. In the meantime, I have scheduled something that is not date-centric for 25th Jan, rather than wait further, but of course without prejudice to Raul's final decision; I'll let Raul know. Bencherlite^Talk 15:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Instructions streamlined

I suggest to try to simply drop the restriction of only one nomination at a time. What it probably wants to avoid - the dominance of any given editor - can be achieved by polite discussion, I am sure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this. The restriction made sense in an era with fewer slots and when people tended to nominate only their own articles; neither is the case now. We have plenty of space for more nominations and it would make the delegates' lives easier to see a more active page with more pre-selection and vetting of potential TFAs. Bencherlite^Talk 22:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The domination of one editor to the process is not really a factor for people such as Gerda and myself whose nominations have been articles that others have written, especially if we take care to nominate a wide variety of stuff. It makes sense that if people like us are prepared to spend the time to hunt for, clean up, and nominate worthy candidates, that our assistance should be encouraged. It makes the delegates' task a lot easier, imho, if there's a variety of participants and a full slate of nominations. Many of my nominations were articles whose primary authors are no longer with the project. Examples: Tool (band); Battle of Bosworth Field; Hurricane Gustav (2002). I can't guarantee I would resume cleaning up and nominating articles if this rule were changed, but as things stand right now, I won't. The reason I quit suggesting articles was because of this rule; it just got too tedious to have to permanently watch-list the page on the off chance there were any questions about my one nomination. -- Dianna (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see this being something to consider for example three, six or nine months down the road, but am not sure the page is ready for it. First, this is a solution looking for a problem-- we have three delegates now, plus Raul, so they aren't overworked. Second, there is a recent history of ill-prepared nominations of articles a delegate might not have chosen, but more, thirdly, the notion that this "can be achieved by polite discussion" may work for the current audience/participants, but we want the page to work for future potential participants-- if someone new comes along and nominates say three ill-prepared articles, their first foray here might not be positive. Fourth, the page is increasingly oriented towards date relevance, when that should be only one factor-- and the community often nominates for date relevance. The idea that we have to schedule articles around date relevance is popping up more and more ... new nominators would be likely to further that trend, with more than one nom at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just a question of whether the delegates are overworked; the question should be whether wider community input is welcome and desirable. The way I'm reading your remarks is that you think community input is not needed and is not wanted, that your preference would be for the delegates alone to select articles, because people might nominate ill-prepared articles or nominate strictly based on date relevance. Am I understanding you correctly? But these things are no more likely to occur when people nominate multiple articles as when they only nominate one at a time. And as long as points are awarded for date relevance, people will continue to nominate on that basis. -- Dianna (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's how you're "reading [my] remarks", it is incorrect. Note that I said "we want the page to work for future potential participants-- if someone new comes along and nominates say three ill-prepared articles, their first foray here might not be positive". We don't want to have to go tell them they did something wrong, and hope that "polite discussion" will resolve the issue. We want the page to work for potential new participants ... removing a rule that has worked and is working may lead to problems. Getting more participation on this page isn't achieved by having more of the slots taken up by fewer nominators ... it's more likely to happen if they find empty slots when they show up (which was precisely one of my points in the earlier thread about revisiting removal conditions on "Adding requests"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Participation is down sharply over what we had in the fall, when there were lots of nominations on the board and lively discussions that included a lot of different editors. That's what I would like to see return to the page, and I think loosening up the rules a little bit would help achieve that. -- Dianna (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, forgot to say, at my screen resolution (125%) there are five screens full of instructions before I get down to the table where the noms are listed. A huge amount of complex instructions and an awkward complex point system. I am pretty sure new contributors to the page find that more than a little intimidating. -- Dianna (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the complexity of the instructions is off-putting, but having thought about the problems for a number of years, I'm at a loss for an effective way to simplify them and still meet page objectives. Also, I suspect there's an "apples and oranges" issue on the "participation is down ... " because three of the editors who regularly participated are now gone, blocked, or banned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I like to keep things simple and suggest we just try it and see what happens. If a new editor comes along with the mentioned three ill-prepared nominations, I am willing to tell the one to withdraw two of them for the moment and concentrate on improving only one first. - I was ready to nominate a person for TFA on the anniversary of his death, but dropped the idea because we recently had another US politician, - no rule needed. We might trust in people being open for reasonable arguments a bit more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, trusting the current participants says nothing about how future participants might react, and finding no open slots on the page can be as off-putting as the long instructions. If there's an article you want to nom, why not suggest it here and see if someone else noms it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I said "try" when I first suggested, I said "try" again, - it can easily be changed back in case it doesn't work, as the five slots for "no date" were changed back. - I typically don't make others work for me, but will keep your suggestion in mind. - Actually, I suggested something here before, Little Moreton Hall, looks pretty on the Main page right now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Much as I hate to burst your bubble, Gerda, the fact that you suggested it on this talk page wasn't the reason why I ran Little Moreton Hall. "Art, architecture and archaeology" has very few FAs that have yet to appear on the main page, so anything new appearing there is an obvious easy pick for delegates whether someone nominates or mentions it or not.

The importance of date relevance in nominations is another issue, although of course the page was made to appear more skewed towards date-specific nominations when the ratio of specific to non-specific slots was changed from 5:2 to 10:5 to 10:2 over the course of a few months.

Anyway, getting back to the point of this thread: why don't we have a trial period of, say, 3 months for removing the "one per nominator" rule? Any objections to that? Bencherlite^Talk 15:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• That'll be fine with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• As I said earlier, I oppose for now but could support this some months down the road if this page stabilizes/matures. In the meantime, I've offered some alternatives on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• @Bencherlite: Thanks for scheduling! - I didn't say my suggestion was the reason for you scheduling Little Moreton Hall, right? We just arrived at the same thought ;) - I suggested Alexis Bachelot for 22 Feb. Without the rule I could go ahead and get Grand Teton National Park for 26 Feb to the discussion NOW. With the rule, I have to wait until the other one is scheduled, or expect someone else do the work for me. As you are the only one who schedules right now, I support what you think is best for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Timing

There's a good example (Grand Teton National Park) for discussion. Feb 26 is over a month away; why do we need to get it on the page so soon? I could understand bringing articles up sooner if the additional lead time was being used here to check articles relative to the FA standards, but they haven't been at least recently. Scheduling farther out allows time for quality screening, but if that isn't being done, why are we taking up slots so far in advance? (As an aside, there are a couple of things I know need to be checked on the Teton article, and will do so as soon as I have time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to get it on the page soon, but - as you suggested - it gives more time to fix things. With five more open slots and nothing pending, it would not take up space needed for others. - Thanks for looking at this article, - you and hopefully others looking early, that is what is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be more expedient to put the "what needs to be checked" discussion here, and just ask MONGO, who will likely know the answer. Eons ago, it was common for articles like this to be cut-and-pasted from public domain sources; before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written in 2009, many of us (myself included) thought that was OK, and articles with cut-and-paste from public domain sources without quotes even passed FAR. That has since changed, and to my knowledge, none of MONGO's or Mav's current FAs contain same (IIRC, they even went back and addressed old FAs). But, in the FAC, Mongo referred to this version from which work to bring the article to FA status began, which did include old unquoted cut-and-paste public domain text. We need to ask MONGO if all of that was corrected, or if we need to check for close paraphrasing, etc. He'll know if that was addressed ... anyway, I put this here because many older FAs that used USGS or NPS sources (which are public domain) had some unattributed, unquoted cut-and-paste, so we have to watch for that. I'll ping MONGO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looking over the article history, the last remnants of any PD text that might have still existed in the Grand Teton National Park article would have been starting to be eliminated in March 2011, which is when I started the major overhaul of the article. I spent over a year off and on working on the article...the slowish to load diff here shows the article history one edit before I started my work through the most recent edit and aside from perhaps a few sentences, I don't see any similarity in the text, though of course some of the facts are the same. The article expansion was almost 75,000kbs and the only sections the article had in March 2011 that had much to them was the history, geology and fauna which themselves had been altered in the several years from when it might have been pasted in from the National Park Service website...which has also changed a lot since then as the Park Service revamped all their pages in 2009-2011. Here's a snapshot of how the article looked after I made my first edit in March 2011 when I commenced the article rewrite....compared to the page Grand Teton National Park, I see a few similar sentences, but not many. Perhaps I can do a spot check on a dozen PD references used and see if I did any close paraphrasing, but I'm generally cautious about that to begin with.--MONGO 23:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I started thinking in the preparation, the blurb needs trimming - so much could be said! - feel free to do it right there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah...I'll work on a trim on that over the next couple of days.--MONGO 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Points

Sorry, I misread the instructions, in "Promoted between one and two years ago", "one year" seems to mean "12 months", not "the previous year", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, otherwise every 2012 FA would get a point as the clock turned to 1st January 2013, regardless of whether the promotion date was January 2012 or December 2012, which would be silly. Bencherlite^Talk 13:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

and you still need those points? and the recently approved FAs - in hopefully good condition - need to be "punished"? silly immature questions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

TFA oddities

I mentioned a while ago that I wanted to make a little list of them somewhere, so I've come up with User:Bencherlite/TFA oddities. Have I forgotten anything? Bencherlite^Talk 01:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Answer to plagiarism/copyvio: throw a storm at it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On a more serious note: Madonna was run nominated as TFA despite knowledge that the main editor was a habitual fabricator of sources, with several problems already brought up at its TFAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Raul said this after replacing Grace Sherwood: "...I decided to pick a storm TFA because we have an overabundance of them, and I figured its authors wouldn't be too upset if one of theirs got the short shrift." Bencherlite^Talk 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting diff, check out the line above it: "it's not the first time [I've had to pull a TFA], but it's been quite a while since the last time."... might require some hunting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Planning TFA in advance

Related to "very long queue": scheduling ahead is one thing, planning ahead another. Delegate Becherlite has an admirable notepad covering 2013, and WP:QAI has an open list you may want to use, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

April Fool's Day discussions

We have parallel discussions and proposals on two different pages, which is not a good thing. Can we decide if the right place is this page or Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Featured_Article? --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• It should be there, as it has been for the past four years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Icelandic Phallological Museum on April Fools' Day?

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

---

I think this would be a good article to save for April Fools. Raul654 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was brought up several times. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why is this being nominated here? Raul654 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sandy liked the idea when it was mentioned, and frankly I've had enough of people finding reasons why it shouldn't be run on a specific date - hence the non-specific date nomination. Prioryman (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I'm going to have to disagree with Sandy. I think this could be a fantastic April Fool's article and I really would like to save it for that purpose. (Note: I'm not saying it's guaranteed to run on that day, but so far it's my favorite. If it doesn't run on that day, we can always run it on another day.) Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The gist of Sandy's point (if I remember correctly) was that Wikipedia's main page is already criticised for it's... phallocentrism... on 1 April. In other words, too many dick jokes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, and (if you'll forgive the pun) there's been too much dicking around with this article's nomination for me to favour nominating it for 1 April. I'm concerned that, as with the last time this was nominated, someone will try to bump it out of the slot. Prioryman (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Another argument, if I remember it right, was that this is a serious museum, not what people expect on 1 April, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That it is intended as a serious article is not entirely relevant, since other FAs used on April Fools are typically also serious (albeit lend themselves to funny blurbs). Ima Hogg, Museum of Bad Art, etc. My point was that, considering the criticism that occurred in the last two years (resulting more from problems/abuse at DYK entries, but spilling over to affect perception of TFA's April Fools' entry), we can do better than penis jokes, and we have done better than penis jokes in the past.

Could we move this whole April Fools' discussion to talk here so it doesn't sidetrack this nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a link back at the original discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this as on par with Museum of Bad Art - a museum of things that most people will not expect to exist. In fact, I'm hoping for comments along those lines. Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with points raised by Raul654 (talk · contribs) but also those raised above on this talk page and back at the discussion by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs). There's a risk that this article will be subsumed to something else for April Fool's, and thus not run at all on the Main Page for any date at all — which would be a shame for an article of such high quality that also is available to readers in twenty (20) languages. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly that it should run sometime soon, if not selected for April Fool. I don't think it's going to be allowed to simply disappear from view without being selected. The only thing that is stopping me from scheduling it for 29th January (the next available slot at the time of writing) is Raul's suggestion that we save it for 1st April. Bencherlite^Talk 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, thanks very much, Bencherlite (talk · contribs), for this helpful reply! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any support (apart from Raul) for the article to run on 1st April. I think that pretty much means the idea isn't going anywhere; shall we move on and consider when the article should run? Prioryman (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• First open spot, I guess. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like that's still 29th January... Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, hope Bencherlite sees this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, no. I was serious when I said I wanted to hold off on running this article until April Fools - at least until I have a chance to survey the options. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Holding off on this does give me a problem, though. I need to nominate a triple TFA for March 25, but the rules suggest that I can't do that if Raul is still sitting on this nomination. The triple nomination has been two years in the making so I'd be loath to miss the date, which is an anniversary. What do I do? Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

- which would not be a problem if the instructions were streamlined, - where are we in that discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

- Waiting for more people to join in so we can see where the consensus is, perhaps? Anyway, as I've just explained on Prioryman's talk page, the IPM nomination doesn't prevent him requesting the triple header at Raul's talk page, which is where unusual requests like that need to go. FWIW, I think a triple-header TFA like that would be excellent. Bencherlite^Talk 21:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it up with him on his talk page. Thanks for the advice. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives for April Fools

Shall we have a think about some alternatives, to see whether the IPM is the best we can manage? Like Sandy, I'm not keen on this running on 1st April (although I think it should run soon) essentially for the reasons she gives. I'll leave a message at WT:FAC and T:MP inviting comments; if anyone else can think of other venues to notify, please do so. Bencherlite^Talk 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If the past few years have been any indication, there's always going to be criticism of what's placed on the main page, regardless of whether or not we try to be politically correct.--WaltCip (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an April Fools suggestion page somewhere-- I can never find it. In past years, we found that if we geared up by mid-February, we could generate an FA in time for April Fools, from scratch. I don't know if we have the number/caliber of editors these days to pull off another Ima Hogg, which was a collaboration of experienced FA writers, but it would be fun and a wonderful way to re-energize FAC. That April Fools page I can never find probably has some article suggestions. Long ago, The Fat Man suggested we take on Maggot cheese. Now that many of us have JSTOR access, I wonder if it's doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Were you thinking of Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article, perhaps? The general discussion Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page is a little light on recent thoughts but the DYK subpage is at work already. Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the one! Clicking on the archive links in the infobox brings up older sample suggestions. I 'spose the med editors could bring male lactation up to standard fairly quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Messages left at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. I have made a suggestion below; if someone else comes up with a better existing FA, or can write a better April Fool FA between now and scheduling time, so much the better. My only purpose was to set the ball rolling and see if there was something that would be better than the IPM, even if it wasn't the final selection, so that the IPM could be scheduled at will. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It seems that WaltCip (talk · contribs) has made the wisest comment on this page so far! ;) — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am currently working on getting Sacred Cod of Massachusetts up to FA status. I am working it through it's last Peer Review and was hoping to get it nominated for FA in time for this years April Fools. School really got in my way over the past few months, so I am a little behind where I want to be in this process, but if it doesn't get through for this years April Fools, I am hoping it will be ready for next years.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just put Sacred Cod up at FAC.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Exploding head syndrome - I think that this would make one of the best April Fool's Main Pages of all time. Its not an FA now, but if people want to work on it, I think we may be able to get it up to FA status by April. Remember (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per my comments a couple of years ago when someone suggested Tarrare, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of running medical articles for laughs. EHS is a genuine medical condition, and sufferers will quite rightly take offense at the idea that Wikipedia is treating it as a joke. If you want a non-FA that's work-uppable, might I point you in the direction of Fox tossing? – iridescent 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Considering I actually suffer from EHS and know what it is like, I don't think people will get offended. It's the name that is ridiculous, not the condition. But if people don't want to promote this, that is fine. Remember (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd be happy with Exploding Heads or the Piece of Cod that Passeth All Understanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Toledo War

The Toledo War was 'fought' in the United States between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan in 1835 and 1836. They tussled over a five-to-eight-mile-wide (8 to 13 km) strip of land mainly because few understood the geography of the Great Lakes, (inaccurate 18th-century map pictured) and both governments thought the land was theirs. The conflict began with political maneuvering, as Ohio used the dispute to block Michigan's bid for statehood, before moving into legislating the other into capitulating. When these failed, their militias were mobilized to taunt each other across the Maumee River. In the one military confrontation, Michigan militiamen fired shots into the air and captured some surveyors. The war's only casualty was a sheriff stabbed with a penknife. Eventually, the American Congress proposed that Michigan would receive statehood and the completely undeveloped Upper Peninsula in exchange for the strip. Michigan accepted the deal in the "Frost-bitten Convention" of December 1836, but it took 137 years and the Supreme Court of the United States to address the last remaining dispute. Both sides won, to some extent, as the Upper Peninsula was apparently exceedingly valuable, though occasionally volatile. The entirely uninvolved Wisconsin, on the other hand, was the real loser, as the Upper Peninsula would otherwise probably have become part of that state. Today, the Toledo War is still fought, albeit on a contracted annual basis. (Full article...)

OK, so this would be the American civil war that nobody talks about, would it, because it sounds more like a French farce? What do we think of this as a TFA for 1st April? Bencherlite^Talk 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's some potential in there, but methinks your tongue-in-cheek could be accessorized by someone on par with The Fat Man :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• I genuinely laughed at this blurb. Support for April 1st 2013 TFA.--WaltCip (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support—if there's room, we probably could add something about the Michigan–Ohio State rivalry that's grown out of this; in effect the Toledo War is still refought every fall on the football field. The History Channel's special, How the States Got Their Shapes opened with the Michigan–Ohio State game as a backdrop to the first segment on how Michigan got its shape. Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you can get something into the article about this, then it'd be great to have it in the blurb if it runs. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, some stuff about the rivalry was taken out in this edit last year, without explanation, which may give you a starting point. Bencherlite^Talk 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Which I was able to restore, and expand upon with a citation to the episode of the TV show. Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I added a bit about it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - ahaha, people here still talk about this. Michigan won, because who wants Toledo today anyway? ;-) Also those commenting here might be interested in the BJAODN Upper Peninsula War. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose needs some remedial work before it's fit for main page, per its entry at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006. If improved, switch to weak support. I'd prefer something US-centric, to something penis-centric, but a more worldview-compliant joke would be better on a high profile date like this. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the last 2 or 3 were British. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • 2007 George Washington (inventor); 2008 Ima Hogg; 2009 Museum of Bad Art; 2010 Wife selling; 2011 Cock Lane ghost; 2012 Pigeon photography. So 3 USA articles, a couple from England and one German invention. Bencherlite^Talk 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Alright, thanks. Still neutral on this if that's the case... blurb could be made funnier / more exaggerated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I've fixed the only thing identified as wrong on Dweller's page. [8] Suggestions for making the blurb funnier would be appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Toledo War raged between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, in the United States, beginning in 1835. The two began by tussling over a five-to-eight-mile-wide (8 to 13 km) strip because both sides misunderstood their local geography (inaccurate 18th-century map pictured). Thus, both governments thought the land was theirs. Ohio used the dispute to block Michigan's bid for recognition, and moved to use legislation to bring the other to its knees. When these failed, their militias taunted each other across the Maumee River. The only military confrontation saw Michigan militiamen shoot at the clouds and capture some surveyors. The war's only casualty was a man stabbed with a penknife. The American Congress proposed that Michigan could have a large unexplored forest in exchange for the strip. At the "Frost-bitten Convention" in December 1836, Michigan accepted the deal, but it took 137 years and a Supreme Court ruling to address their last remaining dispute. Today, the Toledo War continues to be fought, albeit on a contracted annual basis. (Full article...)

• Something like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

? (film)

?

(Full article...)

Possibly the most minimalist TFA ever... Prioryman (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• LoL, except we did it at DYK last year. I don't mind running it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• You forgot the italics, because it's a film, and we link to the TFA in bold, so I've added 5 x ' each side to make this blurb more compliant with TFA standards... Bencherlite^Talk 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For April Fools (at DYK at least) the standard formatting can be ignored if it will give away the joke — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Played with the formatting a bit. Getting rid of the TFAFULL template might be even more fun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I quite like this one. Let's face it, it's the only chance we'll ever get of running a TFA that consists of a single character. Prioryman (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support LOL! Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Ditto, I think this would be a fantastic April Fool's.--Chimino (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This might be my favorite April Fools' Day TFA idea ever. We can drop the "Full article..." link too. —David Levy 01:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Glad people like this... but the discussion should be at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article (which is currently a little threadbare) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Copied there. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Some other suggestions

These are all "old" FAs, that look reasonably good.

From the "not what you expect it to be" category:

• Pixies

Some subjective inherent humour in name:

• Kingdom of Mysore

Mentions "fool"ery:

• Only Fools and Horses (but needs remedial work)

Inherently ridiculous:

• Scotland national football team (sorry, Brit joke)

Btw, can I nominate Witchfinder General (film) for next Halloween, while we're at it, as well as Guy Fawkes Night for next Nov 5?

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am working on an article on Grave robbery (it's in my user space so don't bother with the present article). I can guarantee you it will be chock-full of all kinds of unbelievable facts. Whether or not it'll be suitable for 1 April will be anyone's guess. Parrot of Doom 19:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning to do an article on corpse medicine for Halloween, so watch this space. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It took forever to get the actual article Circle jerk into Wikipedia - a female did it. So come on, it IS the funniest thing in all patriarchy, so you gotta do SOMETHING with it! (Assuming it hasn't been done multiple times already. CarolMooreDC 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a frat house? I thought it was an encyclopedia. And a female what? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Or was that a suggestion to put a disambiguation page up as today's featured article on April 1? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did notice at least one, and perhaps more, unintended puns(?) in my comment. (Hmm, Humor article doesn't mention puns, so I just added; see how long it lasts.)

I'm lost when wikipedia doesn't give me the answers. Hmmm... maybe an April Fools story could be based on someone's reliance on wikipedia.

But seriously, where do the article submissions get previewed and decided on? Maybe I'll do one NOT related to male anatomy or sexual practices. I know I did a popular one on a high profile nut job 10 years ago that resulted in her sending me a few hundred hate messages, so I must have done something right :-) But maybe that's vs. BLP and we have to keep it to non-BLPs. CarolMooreDC 16:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• If y'all can live with the fact that the principal author won't lift a finger to revert vandalism and "improvements" on the day so someone else will need to watchlist it, one of the most peculiar articles on the entire 'pedia is still available. The sentence "Once shaved, the drunken bear would be fitted with padded artificial breasts, and dressed in women's clothing and a wig" is still IMO one of the finest lines on Wikipedia. – iridescent 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Above suggestions (and blurbs) moved to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page so they don't get lost in archives. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Can this section be archived, so we don't get duplication? I've worked up a proposed blurb for Pixies at Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Featured_Article#Pixies. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Time to replace Raul654

I have to say that I'm getting increasingly fed up with our absent Featured Article Director. Even though it's been universally supported, my nomination of Icelandic Phallological Museum is getting nowhere - solely because Raul654 (and nobody else) is thinking of running it on April Fool's Day, against my wishes and against those of several other editors. However, he has not followed up in the discussion on this page. I also have a triple featured article that I want to nominate for 25 March; it was highlighted on his user talk page two weeks ago but there's been no response from him. His contributions show that he's been all but inactive since the New Year; he's only made 17 edits in that time and only 5 edits in the last two weeks. The last TFA he scheduled appears to have been on 23 November 1 December 2012. Before that, he was absent entirely from Wikipedia for the whole of September, October and half of November 2012. His only substantive scheduling activity since late August 2012 appears to have been a week-long flurry in mid-November, which if I remember rightly was preceded by questions about his lengthy absence. For whatever reason, it's obvious that he isn't fulfilling the role of Featured Article Director and hasn't done for some time. It's directly impacting my own featured articles and it's no way to run this section. Frankly, I think it's time either to replace him or to declare the post vacant by reason of abandonment and find some alternative solution, such as the delegates being promoted to the role of co-directors. And while we're about it, can we get Icelandic Phallological Museum out of the way, since Raul654 has left it in limbo? If I have to, I'll withdraw the nomination so that I can get on with the triple featured article. Prioryman (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm happy with keeping Raul as the FA director iff he is engaged and active within the FA process. If this isn't happening—and the evidence above is rather persuasive—it's time to elect a new director. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need a director (if by that you mean a single individual). We do need some form of coordination. That's why I suggested the three delegates being co-directors. I would be happy to see an annual election of a triumvirate of co-directors, but for now I'd suggest sticking the co-director label on the current delegates until some more formal arrangement can be worked out. In the short term we need someone to take the decisions that Raul654 isn't around to take. Prioryman (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell me a decision that can't be reached by consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, and it's why I've always been uneasy about the power of the Featured Article Director to overrule consensus (as was happening with my museum article). I think that power needs to be removed. In the short term, though, what we need is (1) someone to close TFA nomination discussions, (2) promote and set up TFAs once they've been agreed upon, and (3) to agree "special" decisions such as my triple TFA and the choice of April Fool's TFA. The delegates already do (1) and (2) but the rules mean that (3) is the prerogative of Raul654 alone, and in his absence that prerogative isn't being fulfilled. The bottom line is that anything which relies on one single individual to do is a point of failure, if that individual is absent. That particular role needs to be delegated. Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

When last I saw the issue raised, I supported Raul's retention of the featured article director position. Since then, the situation has changed dramatically. As noted above, he's virtually abandoned his responsibilities. His delegates have performed admirably, with various editors commenting that things have improved in Raul's absence (and while I believe that Raul did a good job, I'm inclined to agree).

I might have found this arrangement to be satisfactory (albeit not ideal), if not for the fact that Raul is actually hindering their efforts by occasionally dropping in to remind everyone that he's still in charge and entitled to overrule his delegates and the rest of the community.

The underlying attitude is nothing new. From the beginning, Raul has made comments indicating that his authority on all matters featured article-related is absolute. I've never agreed (and I've noted this in the past, even when opposing the previous attempt to replace him), but problems rarely arose because he usually chose to make decisions more or less in line with consensus. Now that he's largely ignoring his role except to impede others' efforts, it's time to append "emeritus" to his title.

As proposed above, the delegates can take over on an interim basis. At this point, it's a mere formality. From what I've observed, their obligatory deference to Raul's wishes (including endless waiting for him to approve ideas that he simply ignores) is the only thing holding them back. —David Levy 21:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I say give Raul a break. Wikipedia can be a tedious and exhausting place and if he needs some time away here and there I don't see that as a reason to "overthrow" his position. This is an issue in general here IMO. I was once admonished for leaving an FAC unattended for 5 whole days (while I was on holiday), and it was intimated that I needed to be accessible daily, which I personaly think is utter nonsense. I've also seen many decent RfA condidates opposed because they took to many breaks from editing, which is a brilliant thing to do at times IMO. Remember, we are all unpaid voluteers just doing our best. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  As noted above, I would deem the situation acceptable if Raul actually were taking a break from his role (i.e. fully delegating his authority to others and permitting them to carry out the required tasks without interference). Instead, he's actively impeding efforts to operate the process by retaining his responsibilities and not acting on them.
  Prioryman spent two years working on a set of three articles (including physically traveling to the places they're about) in the hope of attaining FA status and nominating them for a special triple TFA blurb on a relevant anniversary. This is a departure from the section's usual format, the approval of which Raul hasn't assigned to his delegates. So Prioryman posted a polite, detailed explanation/request on Raul's talk page, joined by Bencherlite (one of Raul's delegates) minutes later. Despite editing his talk page, Raul hasn't even acknowledged the request, which has languished for two weeks. His own delegate supports the idea (but lacks the authority to approve it), and Raul can't be bothered to comment or cede the decision to Bencherlite. So we're simply stuck. Several editors (myself included) have praised the idea, but that counts for nothing. We can't proceed unless and until Raul gives the go-ahead, and he's opted to do nothing instead.
  The Icelandic Phallological Museum situation (described above) is another example of Raul's detachment from the community. He's unilaterally overruling clear consensus — something that he always believed was his entitlement, but formerly sought to avoid exercising. And he isn't discussing that matter either, so we're stuck there too. Consensus is irrelevant. Only Raul's opinion matters, and we're lucky if we can get him to communicate it. That's unacceptable. —David Levy 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  If there is consensus amoungst the delegates then I think they should do it anyway without Raul's permission. Force the issue and stop allowing him to impede good ideas. Perhaps that would make him reconsider whether or not he wants to retain the position. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  That makes sense, but I don't know whether the delegates are willing to do it (and it would be entirely understandable if they weren't). —David Levy 04:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  What I am suggesting here is really quite simple. If Raul completely ignores a request (for which there is broad consensus) while also not expressly opposing the idea then why would we not just go ahead and do it? Raul has only as much power as we allow him, as with any admin or delegate or assertive editor. Would he then punish the delegates or undo what they had done? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know. As I recall, Raul landed in hot water last year when he responded to an editor questioning his authority by unilaterally banning him from a discussion forum (which he insisted was his right because the page related to featured articles) and abusing the page protection tool to gain an advantage in the dispute. In fairness, the user in question was a trouble-maker (and was banned by the community shortly thereafter), but that doesn't justify Raul's response.
  As noted above, Raul ignoring requests isn't the only problem. I agree that he has only as much power as we allow him, and I've yet to see the discussion in which the community decided to appoint him Featured Article Director for Life, with absolute authority over all related matters. He isn't entitled to overrule consensus, but he believes that he is, and he's begun doing it. It needs to stop, so we're having this discussion. —David Levy 04:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  I hear you on the procedural issues, but again, that should be changed at the proper venue IMO. If FAC directors are overly empowered, then some of that power should delegated to others, proceduraly. I'm all for replacing/removing a tyrant, if indeed that's what Raul has been behaving as, but I would rather improve the power structure than replace Raul with another tyrant, who will retain all the abilities and powers that seem to be the source of the problems. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  I agree. As noted above, I believe that the current delegates should become co-directors on an interim basis, pending a long-term determination by the community. I say this because they already are handling the day-to-day responsibilities and seem to be doing a good job, with only their obligatory deference to Raul impeding their efforts. —David Levy 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  What if we held a community-wide RfC on whether or not Wikipedian's think a director is needed? If the delegates can do his job while he is away, then he doesn't sound necessary, IMO. Perhaps disolving the position altogether is a better option than simply replacing Raul with another who may also have similar issues. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  To be more precise, the community should decide what sort of organizational structure is called for. We would just as easily refer to the delegates as "directors" without anything else changing, so it isn't the terminology that's important. —David Levy 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

Following on from the discussion above, let's think of a way forward (I've added a convenience break). A bit of history first: Raul654 effectively created the Featured Article Director position back in 2003, if I recall correctly, but it was not ratified until this discussion in August 2004. It's worth noting that there was no suggestion that it was a post "for life". It effectively became that through custom and inertia - Raul was doing a good job and nobody felt it was worth changing it. Even that long ago, people were worried that it created a single point of failure - note the discussion immediately below the one that ratified Raul. I think that concern has certainly been borne out. The position of Featured Article Director and its powers is effectively a relic of the early days of Wikipedia, when community standards were very different. It's undeniable that if we were starting afresh in working out how to manage TFA, we certainly wouldn't create a similar post now.

I'm happy to put together an RFC, but what I have in mind is the following:

1. The Featured Article Director post shall be discontinued.
2. Three co-equal Featured Article Coordinator posts shall be created, to be elected annually.
3. The existing Featured Article delegates shall be grandfathered into these posts until elections are held. [need to determine scheduling of elections - I suggest June to avoid clashing with Arbcom elections]
4. Candidates for the role of Coordinator shall be administrators with at least three years' editing experience.
5. The Coordinators shall be responsible for:
   • Determining whether consensus has been reached in a TFA nomination discussion;
   • Closing TFA nominations;
   • Preparing TFAs to go on the Main Page;
   • Scheduling an appropriate TFA for a particular date if nobody has suggested one for that date;
   • Performing maintenance on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
6. If a Coordinator resigns or is inactive for at least three months, a special election shall be held to replace them.

The key principles here are:

1. The people coordinating TFA need to be appointed by the community and answerable to it at regular intervals - hence it needs to be an elected position;
2. The position of coordinator needs to be a resilient one - no more single points of failure, such as dependency on a single individual's availability - and thus the responsibility should be shared;
3. TFA needs to be run on a consensual basis - it's not in keeping with Wikipedia's current standards for consensus to be disregarded, so the coordinators' role should be limited to determining whether consensus exists, without empowering them to overrule it.

Is there anything I've missed? Prioryman (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The FA director / delegate needs to move protect pages, and I'm pretty sure s/he must edit some protected pages — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, hence the requirement for candidates to be admins. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This shows little understanding of the FA process, to be frank - Raul654 is the FA process director, and that includes FAC and FAR. --Rschen7754 08:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've addressed it specifically to TFA, but I see that we have a different set of delegates for FAC and FAR. Is there any reason why we shouldn't just establish a single pool of coordinators to oversee all three? Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, if we include FAC there are 6 delegates. FAC delegates do not need to be admins, but TFA delegates do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Aren't there another set of two FAR delegates as well? That means there's 11 total delegates between the three subprocesses. Iff we wanted to change things, the path forward might be to elect a single FA director on a recurring basis, and leave the relationship between delegates and director pretty much alone. When there are future vacancies in the delegate corps, the FA Director should solicit nominations from the community to make the potential appointments. In the end, the Director would remain a "court of last resort" for appealing delegate decisions on closing FAC/FAR discussions, dealing with unforeseen situations, and handling the timing, solicitations and enactment of delegate appointments as needed. This position could also fire a delegate as necessary, and to remain accountable to the community, would remain subject to removal by ad-hoc RfC. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 17:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Individuals aside, I think that the current "king and king for life" structure is unwikipedian and unhealthy. IMHO much has gone well, but (unless my year old understanding is out of date) at least one thing has gone badly. And that is that only a fraction of TFA's come from the public deliberative process and the rest come from an invisible process. The change that I think is most clearly needed is that all of the TFA selections come from the public process. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that not enough nominations are made to fill the full programme (when the limit on noms was removed for a while there were usually empty slots), and that most people nominate articles based on that article alone, and without a view to maintaining a balanced and representative TFA selection over time, that also gets through our very uneven backlogs in some sort of considered way. So the rest of the programme is filled up by delegates in that way, often pretty close to the run dates; doing all that in public would I think be excessively slow and time-consuming, & experience suggests only a tiny number of editors would be interested in participating in discussions as to which (say) fungus species gets a slot this time round. It would also work against the main editors of TFA articles getting enough notice, which was a big complaint last year. Most articles that are nominated and don't have issues do get placed on the main page. We went through all this last year (at the correct place, which is FAC talk). Since then I think most would agree that the situation has improved in many respects at both FAC and here, with some excellent new blood for the delegates. I'm confident you will find no majority support for changes unless the delegates support the proposals. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the beginning of your post is self-conflicting. Or, to put it another way, why are there severe numerical restrictions on the number of nominations that can (get into) go through the publicly-visible process? North8000 (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not there should be restrictions, Johnbod's comment is not self-conflicting. When we allowed for many more nominations in the queue, there simply was not nearly enough nominations to fill all slots. The practical reality is that you will not get a system where every TFA is selected following community discussion. It will ultimately fall to someone to schedule for unselected dates. And that someone will also have to pay attention to recent TFAs to try and avoid bunching topics. The change you want is quite simply impractical. That, however, does not mean that we can't or shouldn't make some changes. For instance, if we begin scheduling out one month in advance, that would give the community time to review the selections ahead of time, if it so chooses. Resolute 15:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see where that makes any sense. You seem to be mixing two separate topics. I'm talking about the restrictions that limit the capacity of the "public" review process, e.g. by limiting the number that can can be having active reviews....this reduces the number that can get through the public process. Both you and Johnbod seem to be saying "since the public process can't supply 100% of TFA's, lets continue to reduce it's capability to supply articles". That seems backwards. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can understand it might, but if you had watched the page over the last year you would see it was the case. Remember that before the current system was introduced (in ?2008) there was absolutely no limit to the list, which had reached I think over 240 nominations, many a couple of years old, because no one would clean it out. It works better when the list is short, and kept so by a sort of Darwinism. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was not to say "lets keep the number of noms restricted". My apologies if I conveyed that poorly. What I was trying to say was that there was a period late last year where we had space for 10 date specific noms and 5 date independent, and we never really reached the point where we came up against that caps. I was trying to argue that there will always be a need for someone to make an executive decision several TFAs absent community discussion beforehand. Resolute 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• If regular elections are to be held, it might be helpful create three separate seats with staggered terms. Otherwise, we might end up replacing all three coordinators simultaneously (as often as every year), which probably would be disruptive.
  But I'm inclined to question whether such a setup is needed. Practically every other process at Wikipedia simply relies on administrators or other editors in good standing to implement consensus. Even the other main page sections operate in this manner. (OTD and TFP are handled primarily by Howcheng, but he neither possesses special authority nor claims to, and others are welcome to participate.)
  I believe that TFA requires more formality than that (and we certainly need some way of avoiding a free-for-all and ensuring that selections reflect consensus and are scheduled logically), but I'm not certain that we need anyone officially "in charge". (To be clear, I'm also not certain that we don't, but I think that the matter is worth discussing.) —David Levy 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. - 1) I strongly agree with the suggestion to name these posts: "Featured Article Coordinators", so as to avoid the inherently authoritative position of "Director". 2) I also strongly agree that the posts should be equal, with no implied hierarchy. 3) I think the elections should be held annually, but we should stagger them so as to avoid cleaning house of all experienced coordinators at once. 4) I suggest we consider a) limit the number or coordinators to 4 or 5, and b) don't make adminship a requirement. That would exclude 99% of all Wikipedians and further enforce the myth that admins are in some way special or of a higher-quality editor than non-admins. Also, many, many admins have absolutely no idea what an FA looks like. I would like to see the coordinators do more than simply judge consensus (as a bot could do), they should also be reading the articles for quality assurance. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  A possible alternative to staggered terms (which would require the temporary establishment of multi-year durations for some coordinators) is to stipulate that the incumbent with the most votes retain his/her seat, with the other seats filled by the highest-voted candidates from the remaining pool (irrespective of whether they currently hold seats). —David Levy 22:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  I agree David, nice solution. Perhaps we should also consider a division of labour between the coordinators. Maybe one group to handle FAC and FAR and another for TFA and TFAR. Maybe three positions for each? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't visit this page often because I am too busy at FAC. I am very surprised to see this discussion, which seems to be planning the future of FAC delegates without inviting them to the discussion. Exactly, what is going on here? Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm put off by this whole posting for two reasons. First, the FAC community has a major stake in determining whether its leader is doing a good job, yet wasn't notified of this thread for over 36 hours. Why not? If there is to be change, then FAC should have a voice in discussions. The way this was handled gives me the impression that people wanted to overthrow Raul under the FAC community's nose, which I don't approve of. I wish he was more active here, but FAC should at least have been invited promptly to express its opinion, given the shift that has been proposed. My second reason for concern is something Gabe pointed out already: that non-admins are automatically disqualified from being able to run for "coordinator" under the proposal. Many people have contributed greatly to this process without the tools; SandyGeorgia is the most prominent, and she never needed to be an admin to close FACs. I am an FLC director but not an admin; hopefully no one here thinks I've wrecked that process. This proposal does create a divide based on having the tools, and I'm not convinced that 3 editors will be able to do the jobs that 11 handle now. I'd oppose the proposal as it stands. Oh, and there's still over six weeks until March 25. Nothing's been scheduled that far ahead yet, and I wouldn't worry if my proposal hasn't been acted on. I certainly wouldn't call for Raul's dismissal over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia would never have got through RfA, no more than I would. The really offensive thing here is the notion that only administrators can be trusted. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that anything to do with the Main Page is protected, and only admins can edit protected pages. It is only the TFA roles that require admins; Ian Rose is not an admin and is a FAC delegate, for example. --Rschen7754 22:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, obviously the status quo is the best of all possible worlds. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why someone who is trusted and respected enough by the Wikipedia community to be elected as an FA coordinator could not also be trusted with the "edit protected pages" tool? Unbundle the bit so that silly reasons like this don't prevent respected people like SandyGeorgia and Giants2008 from being elected. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen: Would you happen to know when TFA pages are protected? I ask because TFL pages aren't protected until right before they go on the main page, and I've never had problems scheduling lists without admin tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong on this, but I believe that it is about a day before. However, TFAs get move protected when they are scheduled. --Rschen7754 11:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

TFA blurbs are automatically covered by cascading protection on the day before they are due to appear on the main page, so no admin powers are required there. Thereafter, only admins can edit the blurb, so a non-admin delegate wanting to make changes to blurbs on the day or the day before would need assistance. TFAs are generally given full move protection from scheduling onwards, although this is not an urgent task for TFA delegates to perform. It could I suppose be done by an adminbot to save non-admin delegates from having to make frequent requests of passing admins. So admin tools are handy but not essential for life as a TFA delegate. Bencherlite^Talk 13:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I will vehemently oppose elections for the FAC and FAR delegates. We do not want to have the possibility - or appearance - of a delegate making choices on promotions because of upcoming elections. It's easy to make enemies in the delegate role simply because nominators disagree with the your reading of consensus. I think it is less of a problem to elect TFA delegates - but there is no issue with the current delegates. I don't really see a lot of issues with the current process of new delegates being nominated by other delegates, confirmed by the delegate pool, and then confirmed by the wider Wikipedia community. The FA coordinator role is a separate entity - as currently defined, Raul has final say over exceptions to the process and is the final arbiter if other delegates in a process are recused. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have the example of ArbCom, which has indeed allowed upcoming elections to influence its decisions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hawkeye7. FAC is not the supreme court and if its good enough for ArbCom then why not FAC? This issue of course stems from the "director for life" concept that Raul seems to have invented himself (2003) without any direct consent of the Wikipedia community. Raul's delegates are also assumed to be in position "for life", but has this notion ever been properly discussed by the wider community, or is this also the sole creation of Raul? If an FAC coordinator cannot make honest choices that are best for Wikipedia because of the assumed pressures of re-election, then I think they are exactly the types of delgates that should consider stepping aside. Karanacs, per your comment: "It's easy to make enemies in the delegate role simply because nominators disagree with the your reading of consensus." Is this not also true of noms and delegates? FAC is becoming a popularity contest where articles are being judged and passed based more and more on how many "wiki buddies" you have to review and support your work. If promotion at FAC is a popularity contest, then why not hold a popularity contest for FAC coordinators? Why assume bad faith that the community would abuse such !voting privs? One could just as easily assume that "delegates for life" would abuse that priv, not? I don't like double standards. As far as how many coordinators are needed, we can always add or subtract at any time, so that seems to me like a red-herring. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Very long queue?

Whoever is in charge, is there a reason why we couldn't queue up all the articles for a long period in advance, say the next 12 months? Any date-specific discussions, both those driven by the article, or by the date, can be done long in advance (I'm currently impatiently waiting to nominate an article for this Dec) and things can be shuffled around in an orderly manner (perhaps with a minimum time bar to avoid problems, say 30 days, which would allow people to work up new FAs with a date in mind), patterns can be clearly seen long before they're a surprise, blurbs can be written and reviewed etc etc... --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The last two TFAs I had were promoted within a couple months of their appearance date. In both cases, I was responding to upcoming centennials. Scheduling a year in advance eliminates the ability to quickly adapt to new promotions and important anniversaries. Resolute 17:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I covered both those points in my idea. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see it working. There are so few art FAs unused they are normally featured within about 4 months of passing, which I expect is true for other types. The process works best when people have a relatively small window and number of articles to look at. There would be bound to be changes, and then you have to consider the whole pattern again. You'll just have to be patient. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)