Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:51, 1 October 2013

Shortcuts WP:TFAP WP:TFARP The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from February 1 to March 3. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection. Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns. view • edit • history • watch Date Article Reason Primary author(s) Added by (if different) 2025: February 9 Japanese battleship Tosa Why The ed17 March 1 Meurig ab Arthfael Why Dudley Miles Sheila1988 March 10 Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number Why NegativeMP1 March 12 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season Why SounderBruce March 18 Edward the Martyr Why Amitchell125 Sheila1988 March 26 Pierre Boulez Why Dmass Sheila1988 April 12 Dolly de Leon Why Pseud 14 April 15 Lady Blue (TV series) Why Aoba47 Harizotoh9 April 18 Battle of Poison Spring Why HF April 24 "I'm God" Why Skyshifter April 25 1925 FA Cup final Why Kosack Dank May 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015) Why Peacemaker67 May 6 Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories Why Harizotoh9 May 10 Ben&Ben Why Pseud 14 May 11 Valley Parade Why Harizotoh9 May 11 Mother (Meghan Trainor song) Why MaranoFan May 17 Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song) Why Ippantekina Jlwoodwa June The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished Why iridescent Harizotoh9 June 1 Namco Why Harizotoh9 June 3 David Evans (RAAF officer) Why Harizotoh9 June 5 Jaws (film) Why 750h+ June 6 American logistics in the Northern France campaign Why Hawkeye7 Sheila1988 June 8 Barbara Bush Why Harizotoh9 June 23 Battle of Groix Why Jackyd101 Jlwoodwa June 26 Donkey Kong Land Why TheJoebro64 Jlwoodwa July 1 Maple syrup Why Nikkimaria Dank July 7 Gustav Mahler Why Brianboulton Dank July 14 William Hanna Why Rlevse Dank July 26 Liz Truss Why Tim O'Doherty Tim O'Doherty and Dank July 29 Tiger Why LittleJerry July 31 Battle of Warsaw (1705) Why Imonoz Harizotoh9 August 4 Death of Ms Dhu Why Freikorp AirshipJungleman29 August 23 Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 Why Peacemaker67 August 25 Born to Run Why Zmbro Jlwoodwa August 30 Late Registration Why Harizotoh9 September 2 1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season Why Harizotoh9 September 6 Hurricane Ophelia (2005) Why Harizotoh9 September 20 Myst V: End of Ages Why Harizotoh9 September 30 or October 1 Hoover Dam Why NortyNort, Wehwalt Dank October 1 Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 Why Peacemaker67 October 3 Spaghetti House siege Why SchroCat Dank October 10 Tragic Kingdom Why EA Swyer Harizotoh9 October 16 Angela Lansbury Why Midnightblueowl MisawaSakura October 18 Royal Artillery Memorial Why HJ Mitchell Ham II November 1 Matanikau Offensive Why Harizotoh9 November 19 Water Under the Bridge Why MaranoFan November 20 Nuremberg trials Why buidhe harizotoh9 November 21 Canoe River train crash Why Wehwalt December 25 Marcus Trescothick Why Harizotoh9 December 30 William Anderson (RAAF officer) Why Ian Rose Jlwoodwa 2026: January 27 History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II Why Harizotoh9 February 27 Raichu Why Kung Fu Man March 13 Swift Justice Why Harizotoh9 May 5 Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) Why MaranoFan June 1 Rhine campaign of 1796 Why harizotoh9 June 8 Types Riot Why Z1720 July 23 Veronica Clare Why Harizotoh9 September 6 Assassination of William McKinley Why Wehwalt czar September 20 Persona (series) Why Harizotoh9 November The Story of Miss Moppet Why Harizotoh9 November 11 U.S. Route 101 Why SounderBruce October 15 Easy on Me Why MaranoFan November 20 Tôn Thất Đính Why Harizotoh9 December 21 Fredonian Rebellion Why Harizotoh9 December 22 Title (song) Why MaranoFan 2027: June 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) Why August 25 Genghis Khan Why AirshipJungleman29 October 15 The Motherland Calls Why Joeyquism

Shortcut WT:TFAR Archives Archive 1 This page has archives. Sections older than 35 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Sept 28: McNeile / Whaam!

Hello everyone, I've just logged on after my usual weekend away to see lots of messages and comments about this issue. I'll have a read-through and see what's happening and what if anything I can suggest or do about it. One thing that has sometimes worked in the past, when two articles are in healthy rivalry for the same date for good reasons, is to shift one of them a day forwards or backwards. Sometimes this works nicely with time zones of interests for the particular articles. I don't know whether this is an option here. Sept 27 is now a free slot, FWIW. Bencherlite 12:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts:

• Messages to people who have supported one nomination to let them know that there is another nomination for the same date are, I think, a good idea in principle. It may be better in such circumstances to let a neutral person (e.g., but not limited to, me) draw attention back to TFAR in such cases, but I don't want to start getting prescriptive about it.
• That said, I don't think the wording of TTT's message to those who had commented on the McNeile nomination was inappropriate.
• However, I don't think we tend to see messages to related Wikiprojects and / or those who have commented at FAC. Such attempts risk looking "pushy" even if that is not the intention. Numbers of supporters for a particular nomination are not the only factor.
• Both articles were improved to FA standard this year. I'm not immediately sure that I see the benefits of labelling one of the efforts a "TFA drive".
• I would much rather see discussion based on which would be the most appropriate article for the particular date (and which would be the most appropriate date for the article) than comments based on (for example) the behaviour of a nominator.
• Both of the main authors of the articles in question have worked very hard to get them to FA standards and they - and all those who helped them along the way with reviews or copyedits or whatever - deserve our thanks and congratulations.
• What I propose doing is restarting both nominations for the 28th and inviting suggestions for how and when both articles could grace the main page. Imaginative ideas welcome.

Thanks, Bencherlite 13:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, McNeile was a Brit and Whaam! is American, so that's one option. What if... and this is just me being crazy... it's run twelve-twelve-twelve-twelve over two days? Split em both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Historically, articles have shared space with half-sized blurbs and simultaneous appearance. In this case, if both blurbs were altered to include the date, it would be apparent to the readers that both are celebrating round dates of relevance. I don't think any two hooks have ever shared the TFA main page space that were not related before. I don't read the main page every day, but to my recollection there are only two or three shared TFA dates. I can recall the Obama/McCain date and I think there were two bomb shelters or something one time. I don't know if that is a road we want to go down.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• I would welcome a restart on the merits. I continue to prefer the true anniversary, but I continue to think this is a primo page view opportunity hook and if worse came to worse would give it up for a Tuesday down the line. I believe the main page gets the most page views on Monday and Tuesday, which makes me angle for a Tuesday. As much as my reputation has been impared in the last few weeks, I still care about it and I solicited a lot of help over the last 12 weeks under the motivation of a 50th anniversary TFA run (and got nearly 700KB of discussion in response toward improving this article). If anyone has any connections at WP:OTD, putting this picture on the main page at OTD on the 28th and then using the last Tuesday in the exhibition date range (October 22) might be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• If we are relagated to OTD on 9/28, any date between October 21 and 24 is fine. Maybe the 24th would make the most sense, since then it would celebrate the conclusion of its debut exhibition. However, so as not to conflict with whatever strong date connections might arise, I list this date range.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alternatively, if MacNiele is a notable enough author, we could stuff him at OTD, but we don't have a good enough picture for him to be the main over there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Of course you would welcome a restart: you see McNeile lose nine supports, while you lose five six opposes;

2. If you are so happy to see McNeile at OTD, why don't you put Whaam there instead? No? Didn't think so.

3. Don't call me "a poor sport", especially just after I had moved my article out of the way.

4. Don't refer to others as if its some form of conspiracy against you (c.f. "those McNeile people")

Yes, you've managed to piss me off immensely over this - not with your nomination, but with your behaviour before and after it.- SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see two solutions that don't require complicated handling:

• have one 27 September (which is 28 in parts of the world), the other 28 September
• have the bio 28 September, birthday of the person, the other any date during the premiere exhibition which opened 28 September and closed 24 October. The day of the opening is not the birthday of the artwork. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bencherlite, I'll trust you and the community to make the right decision on this without me trying to force my personal opinion on things. If you do go down the route of restarting, could you please leave a neutral note on the talk pages of those who have already commented? Could you also ignore the more pointless suggestions, like OTD? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Either of Gerda's options makes sense and is neutral. Splitting the day in a way that requires special handling just to suit egos is not the way to go. PumpkinSky talk 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think Whaam! should run the 27th even though the 28th is emphasized as the show opening. McNeile should run on the 28th. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In the end, as you will see, I plumped for the usual solution in such circumstances, which was in fact suggested by a couple of people - i.e. run one (Whaam!) a day early, and the other on the day. I put McNeile on the actual day partly because it's a genuine birthday and the Whaam! exhibition opening date is not quite the same thing (as has been said by one or more people) and partly because all-in-all McNeile was more favoured for the actual day. Hopefully this unfortunate episode can now be put behind us and TFAR return to its usual happy and co-operative way of working. Thanks (or should that be Thaanks!...?) Bencherlite 11:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thaanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Two minor adjustments to procedure, hopefully to decomplicate matters slightly

1. Now that this page has 10 date-specific slots, the pressure on slots is not as much as it used to be in the days when there were only 5. Until now, there has been a rule that nominations with 5 or more points had to wait a bit longer before being eligible for nomination. I have decided that this is an unnecessary complication. This summer, for example, Roger Waters was nominated too early according to this subrule, so I removed it, and it wasn't readded but I ended up rescuing the nomination anyway; and another article was nominated with a points calculation that was too low which meant that technically it was too early, but I didn't remove it because it wasn't going to be long until it was in time and there were no issues of competition for slots. Frankly, the rule was getting to be more trouble than it was worth, so I have removed it. Any article can be nominated for any day in the next 30 unscheduled days, regardless of points.
2. I have now extended the period for entering articles on the "pending" template to one year. Some people will have dates in mind a long time in advance and if the "pending" template notes that there is an aspiration to have X appear on a particular date within 12 months, it might at least make me check first before picking! To that end I have also add a "contact" field to the pending template, so that I know who has added a particular entry. As ever, use of the /pending template is not compulsory.

Thanks, Bencherlite 23:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood will not be re-run

I am not going to run this article for a second time. Rather than let the arguments - and the arguing - rumble on for a couple more weeks until I reach the time for scheduling 31st October, I might as well say what my decision is now. For a TFA to be repeated has always been an exceptional occurrence; Raul did so only extremely infrequently and I have never done so. The reasons in favour of making Grace Sherwood another exception are simply not strong enough, in my view. I am also thinking of the wider picture - every exception to the "only once" rule, as this discussion itself shows, is used in future as precedent for another exception being made. The arguments in favour of this being treated as a unique case seem to be these (in no particular order, and paraphrasing rather than quoting):

• The current version of the article has not been on the main page. Well, the same can said of (1) 50 or so other former featured articles that appeared on the main page before their demotion that have since been repromoted; (2) many other FAs, particularly older FAs, that have been substantially rewritten without being demoted at WP:FAR. There are also several hundred FFAs that could be repromoted and seek to use a repeated Grace Sherwood as a precedent.
• The circumstances in which this article was demoted are unique. In fact, Frederick Russell Burnham was also pulled from the main page during its appearance at TFA because of similar concerns and efforts are currently underway to bring Burnham back to FA status.
• It didn't have 24 hours on the main page. True, but that's just one of those things I'm afraid, and not TFA's fault. I do not think that the more egregious the problem with the article, the more exceptional should be TFA's treatment of it thereafter.
• Re-running it would enable Misplaced Pages to put a lot of things behind it. That's not what the TFA slot is for. It is also clear that even nominating this article for reconsideration leads to a lot of discussion - views may vary as to how helpful/friendly/ that discussion is - being generated about the surrounding circumstances, including the rights and wrongs of how Rlevse/PumpkinSky was treated. That's not what the TFAR page is for, and the prospect of all the history and circumstances being thrashed out yet again at here and other locations does not appeal to me. I want to avoid any appearance of TFA being used to settle scores, declare victory, show who was right etc - I'm not saying that is what the nomination is after, of course.
• It would mean a lot to a lot of people. I'm sure it would, but refeaturing any former TFA would mean a lot to various people. If the reasoning is more along the lines of a desire to show a special degree of thanks/appreciation/"welcome back" to PumpkinSky, then repeating a TFA is not the way of doing so, and being jointly responsible for the most-viewed TFA ever (as was also pointed out) isn't a bad way of showing how successfully he has returned!
• It's been done before. Not for anything like these reasons. Barack Obama was to mark the US election and enable a neutral TFA slot with both candidates represented. Transit of Venus marked an extremely rare astronomical event that no-one alive at the time will see again. Nick Drake was one appearance interrupted by a site-wide blackout; if the 24-hour blackout had been from midnight UTC rather than midday, it wouldn't even be on the list.

I do not think that re-running Grace Sherwood is appropriate both because of its history and because of the bad precedent it would set. I congratulate PumpkinSky, Wehwalt and any others involved in getting this article back to featured status. I remain grateful for all that they do to help at TFAR and elsewhere (and have previously expressed in another forum my support for and faith in PumpkinSky). In future, please discuss exceptional nominations with me first. To do so is not mere box-ticking and form-filling, but a desire to minimise drama. Bencherlite 11:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, for those of us who were hoping for reform of TFA in a post-Raul age, we are quite disappointed. The overwhelming consensus of the community was that this was a unique situation and the article was suitable for TFA in all respects. The first three arguments are, actually, decent ones and perfectly adequate, taken as a combined group. The only people in opposition were "the usual suspects" in the whole previous mess. Frankly, "Raul did so..." is not your best argument and does not give the community a lot of hope. Just saying. Montanabw 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. It would be regrettable if Bencherlite were to consider it his place to act in an autocratic fashion. I was somewhat concerned about the recent unilateral change to TFA rules. My understanding of the RfC is that we ended the "god-king" status of the person in charge, so it should have been proposed to, not imposed on, the community. And the block of TonyTheTiger left me scratching my head somewhat not because of its merits, since a block was within administrative discretion, but because we have no one to act in case of conflicts of interest (the community ruled quite clearly last August that Raul, and presumably his successors, are very much subject to normal conflict of interest) and blocking like that could set up a situation where the community has to make a decision. Though Tony has not pressed the issue, that was not the best course of action with other administrators available and aware of the situation. And in the present situation going against community consensus is ill-advised for one who holds office by virtue of the fact that the further RfCs recommended in the close (I imagine there should now be one for each process) have not yet taken place.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fooey! I took no part in the previous rumpus but Bencherlite is clearly correct. There is more than one set of "usual suspects" here, is there not? Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This simply confirms what I saw starting before this TFAR request was even posted--that Bencher has become a clone for Raul's FA dictatorship. Twice months ago when his alleged assistants were obviously defunct I suggested he find assistants but of course I was ignored. Bencher has clearly ignored the overwhelming consensus of the community here; so much for post-Raul reform and so much for wiki being a consensus. Nothing of substance has improved in TFA land. Must be nice to be lord so much power over the wiki minions, eh Bencher? Your arguments don't wash at all Bencher. You know damn well this is a very unique case. May God have mercy on your soul and what you're doing to wiki, because one day karma will come your way and you'll remember this atrocious decision. You don't support me one bit, who are you trying to kid? Power has corrupted you and soon it will totally consume you. You should be ashamed of yourself but I'm sure you're not. PumpkinSky talk 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that this meant more to people then the average bear. I tried to say as much in my statements directed to the nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The usual suspects are in many cases those who worked on the article before, and now again waded back in and reworked it. PumpkinSky despite all that has been leveled at him, with tenacity and the best positive spirit, worked with others editors to improve an article that had been removed becasue it had probelms. The article was removed; it didn't run as a regular article does. This is a community of people working together. I'm sorry the human part of this discussion was ignored. If the aspects of what collaboration is on a collaborative project are ignored, Misplaced Pages can't function and will eventually fail as a collblartive project. It has to. A community of editors rewrote this article, and a community spoke in this discussion. There is far more power and it takes strength to handle a community, to direct according to community agreement, and to monitor the community and how it is moving and flowing, than to override that community with the personal. I think a mistake was made here which impacts on multiple levels. Perhaps the decision could be reconsidered?(olive (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

I was not involved in any way with the issues surrounding the former Grace Sherwood article, and have had little connection with the current version, though I did support its recent restoration of FA status. I don't really want to add anything here other than to express complete disagreement with the statement, above, that "nothing of substance has improved in TFA land". Utter rubbish: everything has improved beyond measure. I remember the days not long ago of one hours' notice before a main page appearance (sometimes not even that), of hastily-written blurbs full of errors, of absentee or non-communicating delegates...the list goes on. None of that applies today. Bencherlite runs a tidy, efficient system that gives principal editors all the time they need to get their nominations into shape. He is courteous and accessible. No one does a job like that, let alone do it conscientiously and well, from a desire for power. PumpkinSky, I understand your disappointment, but you need to modify your outbursts if you want to be taken seriously. You are entitled to point out that many more editors supported the TFA nomination than opposed it, but in making a decision on any particular issue, Bencherlite should not immediately yield to the loudest clamour of voices. He is entitled to excercise judgement in doing what he believes is in the best interests of the WP project as a whole, and even when we don't agree with his decisions, we should respect that. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand squat. You haven't been in my shoes the last three years. And if an article is TFA for one minute does that count as "having been TFA". Ha! I'm sure you'd feel different if you and one of "your" FAs were in this boat. PumpkinSky talk 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I support that Bencherlite's ruling of TFA has so far been good, as described. However, I am surprised that a strong vote (13:2) for running the article is termed "loudest clamour of voices", while a vote of 10:2 against an infobox on Talk:The Rite of Spring was termed an "overwhelming vote". I am interested to eventually find out what "consensus" means here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing infobox vitriol into this, Gerda, as if it wasn't too dramatic already. Ed  20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Brian on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Be all that as it may, before Raul added malice to inactivity with his "block party", he stated that he ran the FA processes, among other things, to encourage and satisfy (I may be misremembering the exact phrasing) those who contributed to them. I find that to be among a useful set of goals.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - I started this an hour or more ago then got side-tracked by a couple of urgent work emails). I knew that there would be some who disagreed with my decision. I am glad that there are at least a few people who think that I'm acting with the best intentions of Misplaced Pages at heart and some who think that I'm generally doing a good-enough job at TFA. I didn't take the decision lightly and I don't think I deserve the personal criticism from PumpkinSky (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?). As for a couple of the other unrelated matters raised by Wehwalt, I am replying to them on his talk page rather than here. Bencherlite 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And what about Gerda's question? Or is that going to be conveniently ignored? The mere fact that you felt it ok to ignore such an overwhelming consenses..... This is one of the many reasons you shouldn't be doing this job alone, but I'm sure you'll ignore that issue too. PumpkinSky talk 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Running TFA is a big job and it would be wise to consider having a team rather than a single individual at the helm. But that's a different issue. I'm rather curious, Bencher, is your view that Grace shall NEVER run as TFA ever again ever ever ever, or would you be open to a re-nom on or after Nov 1, 2013 for Halloween 2014, (per your "one year" rule above) so we have 364 days to argue about it and reach some sort of more overwhelming consensus by NEXT Halloween? Montanabw 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

13-2 would not even be a question anywhere else on wiki; only in FA Dictatorship land is it no good. PumpkinSky talk 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

One more BIG question, if Grace has truly "been on the main page", why isn't it listed here: ]?????? Enquiring minds want to know. PumpkinSky talk 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)