| Revision as of 00:57, 14 May 2007 editJared (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,717 edits →Discontinuing the use of this page: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:41, 27 December 2024 edit undoJens Lallensack (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,502 edits →Old Dinosaur FAs: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|WT:TFAR}} | |||
| :''See ] for helpful hints relating to requests'' | |||
| {{See also|Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches{{!}}the 2008 Signpost article (updated 2016) "Choosing Today's Featured Article"|Template:TFA-editnotice{{!}}the editnotice for TFAs|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/emergency{{!}}the blurbs that can be used in the event of a TFA emergency}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 18 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(35d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box | |||
| |style = font-size:88%; width:23em; | |||
| |auto = long | |||
| |search = yes | |||
| |searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/ | |||
| |bot=MiszaBot II | |||
| |age=14 | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/pending|style=float:none; clear:none; margin:auto;}} | |||
| ==Categories== | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="200px" | |||
| Literally every month without fail, at some point during the month a run of ] suddenly throws up a redlinked category of the "Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from " variety (e.g. {{cl|Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from July 2024}}) which I end up having to create on your behalf, even though I'm not normally involved in this project, because of the rule around not leaving stuff in redlinked categories. So if such categories are routinely expected to exist, then would it be possible for this project to take steps to ensure that they get created either by a project member as soon as they're needed, or automatically by a bot at the beginning of the month, before they turn into work for other projects to clean up? ] (]) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| |} | |||
| :I have no idea. I've been a coordinator for seven years and I have no idea what this is. At a guess, I'd say it's something produced by the template when TFA/R nominations are created. ] (]) 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| ::{{replyto|Bearcat|Wehwalt}} these categories are a direct effect of a TFAR being accepted and scheduled. See for example {{cl|Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024}} where all of the five TFAs were placed in the monthly category by edits {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Battle of Cane Hill|prev|1250941534|like this}}, made either by {{user|Gog the Mild}} or by {{user|SchroCat}}, who used {{tlxs|TFAR top|2=monthyear=October 2024|3=passed=y|4=date=November 28, 2024}} (or something similar). So I think that it's up to these people to notice the redlink that may appear in the category box following an edit like that, and to create the category page to suit. --] 🌹 (]) 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, except they very routinely ''don't'', because it always, every month without fail, gets picked up by the WantedCategories report and thus always, every month without fail, ends up becoming ''my'' job. ] (]) 20:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I guess the two obvious questions I have are, is it worth having categories like this, and in either case, what's the most efficient course of action? ] (]) 20:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Having read the discussion to this point three times I have no idea what it is about, what if anything I am doing wrong, or how if at all I need to amend my practices. Would it be possible for someone to talk it through a level or two down? Thanks. ] (]) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{replyto|Gog the Mild}} OK. When SchroCat made {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Wells Cathedral 1|prev|1249097118|this edit}} on 3 October 2024 (and I'm sure that it was a correct action), it put ] into {{cl|Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024}}, but the category page didn't exist at the time - Bearcat had to create it themselves the following day after being alerted by the presence of that cat in ]. It's something that they have been going on about at VPT and other places for ''months'', if not years. --] 🌹 (]) 20:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I see, I think. Is there a way to automate the creation so we are sure not to cause you any further problems? ] (]) 21:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Or, alternatively, to alter the code so that this is no longer created? Because I suspect it gets next to no page views. As you saw by my initial reaction, it's not something useful in TFA land.] (]) 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Agree. Is there a point to {{c|Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024}}? I'm new to scheduling and it's already an involved multi-step process, so not adding yet another step would be the better pathway. - ] (]) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC) - ] (]) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The categorisation was added to ] by {{user|Bencherlite}}, the template's creator. Why it was done, or if it is necessary, I don't know; but Bencherlite is ] so can't be asked. --] 🌹 (]) 07:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: - to me at least. There's also nothing in the archives of this page or of Bench's talk page where there was a discussion that led to it. It seems superfluous to requirements. - ] (]) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I agree. Simply remove the code that produces this and no more problem, and we don't get talked about on VPT, wherever that is, and elsewhere. Can we agree to do this? ] (]) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::VPT = ]. --] 🌹 (]) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == December nominations == | |||
| Would it be helpful to suggest both a minimum and a maximum character (or word) limit for the description on the Main Page? Thanks, ] 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As scheduling coordinator for December, I announce that nominations for any date through 31 December may now be made. ] (]) 12:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Older Requests == | |||
| The December schedule will be found ]. Nominations are still welcome and we'll adjust as need be.--] (]) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think this page should be split into two parts, with the second part having old and yet-to-be-featured-on-the-Main-Page article requests that have not appeared on the Main Page in the last six months. Most of these are requests that have not been accepted (and probably will never be) depending on various reasons. The reason behind this suggestion is that this page is bloating in size, and splitting would certainly help. — ] (]) 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that the fact that an older request hasn't been main paged yet necessarily means that the article will ''never'' be main paged. As I understand it, the list of FAs deemed unsuitable for the main page by the FA director is rather small. (I'd still rather do away with the whole system altogether; I don't think there's anyone who ''doesn't'' want an FA he or she worked on to be placed on the main page . . . . ) — ] 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree this page is getting bloated. I don't think splitting it is a good idea (it's just one more thing for me to pay attention to, in fact, and anything that makes my workload heavier is an inherently evil thing). If anyone has an idea about how to tackle the increasing page size without adding to my workload, I'm all ears. ] 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Perhaps splitting it in two sections: the first, with FAs requesting to be featured in a particular date, and another for FAs without no particular date in mind? That kills the problem of "dated" articles getting lost in the rest of the requests. | |||
| ::: As for making the page smaller, per se, the only thing I can think of is of using the evil {{tl|hidden}} hack. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Besides the obvious general and date specific requests, I think this is useful to allow feedback by other editors on requests which can range from simple support or opposition to improvement of the article lead (i.e. the recent Stephen Colbert and Macedonia articles). It also seems it would help Raul to already have a modified lead for at least some articles chosen for the Main Page. Would it be possible to just have the article names and comments here, with the proposed modified leads linked but on a separate page (similar to the separate semi-automated peer reviews on ])? This would be work to set up, but would keep all the requests together in one less bloated place, and once set up, nominators could put their requests in both places. Thanks, ] 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Old Dinosaur FAs == | ||
| In the ], we recently started an initiative to collaboratively rework old dinosaur FAs (]). The first one, '']'', is finished now, and it just underwent an extensive, FA-level nitpick review (all within the WikiProject). However, the article now has very little in common with the version that became FA back in 2007 (these dinosaur articles become outdated incredibly quickly). Should we just nominate the article here again (the old version has been TFA in 2013), or do you suggest that we take any additional steps beforehand? Thanks. ] (]) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == What's going on? == | |||
| I noticed that an article I added to the request list, ] has been removed from the list without being added to "this month's queue." Am I missing something? ] 10:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A number of articles have been removed by user ]. I don't know why. I was under the impression that only the "Featured Article Director" (]) could schedule articles. If I were you I would ask Bole2 what's going on. If you don't get a reasonable answer, either revert or talk to Raul about it. ] 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Article which have or are going to appear on the main page should be removed. ] 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :How do you know that it's going to appear on the main page? As far as I can tell it hasn't yet been scheduled. ] 14:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Apologies you are correct. Either Raul had second thoughts about it being on the main page or it was vandalisem. ] 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You might want to check to see whether the other articles you removed have actually been scheduled or not. ] 14:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The imageless ] article == | |||
| It's been brought to my attention that an article does not go up on the main page without an image. Is there a precedent in which an article did go up without an image? It might be a good idea to start a policy in which articles that don't have free use images of the person in question have an image in it's place that says so. Something along the lines of "Free use photo not yet available" to highlight the problem. Could such an image be used for the ] article?-] 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :So far as I know, an article won't be on the main page if it doesn't have a picture that can be used. I went ahead and found a Flickr user willing to donate an image, so that won't be an issue for the ] article now. ] 18:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, amazing. so the process works. Did you talk to the Flickr user and they agreed? I'll have to check Flickr from now on. Your experience should be chronicled somewhere so that others (like myself) can learn from this.-] 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pretty much. I asked the user if she would be willing to release it under a free license, noting that she would probably be cropped out of it. She asked if it was possible to be attributed, and so I explained how attribution is usually done at Misplaced Pages and that it was required by the license, so she released it freely. A lot of the ] have been done that way, though some were already free. ] 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|Main Page request}} adaptation? == | |||
| I see the requests section has recently been divided into chronologically-ordered date-specific requests and non date-specific requests. While the latter have no problem because their title heading is exactly the same as the article's title, the former are modified with the addition of the date between brackets. In this case, the template {{tl|Main Page request}} cannot link to the article's request sub-section because the title isn't the same. So, I think the template coding has to be adapted, no? ''']''' <sup>] || ]</sup> 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Frankly, I'd prefer that that template not be used. ] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why? ] 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::For one thing, it adds more cruft to the top of article talk pages, which is something I have been trying very hard to remove. For another, I WILL NOT be maintaining that tag, so unless someone else is going to be removing it in an organized fashion, it's going to end up on lots of article that are not FAs, or that have already run on the main page, 'etc. ] 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really like this new layout. I suggests that articles with date requests are somehow superior. ] 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just counted and of the 31 articles with a date, only six (], ], ], ], ], and ]) actually mention the date in the proposed lede for display on the main page. I did not bother to read all the articles to see if the date is mentioned in them, but for just over 80% the date requested is not something obvious to someone just reading the main page lede. To me this is another reason to get rid of the date in the request header itself - article name only should be fine. ] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since main page FAs aren't advertised as anniversary articles in the first place, I don't see the harm in suggesting a date that isn't mentioned in either the intro or the article. Somehow I doubt this puts undue pressure on Raul. Everyone respects his choices anyway. | |||
| :::] <sup>]</sup> 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I also rather don't like this template. I just removed it from which is already scheduled. Also, it's obviously copied from the FAC template and uses some code that is only needed to address a problem with some FAC submissions. TFA got along for a few years without this, so I'm wondering why it is needed now? ] 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't like it either; another unnecessary template cluttering talk pages. ] (]) 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Before I discovered {{tl|Main Page request}}'s existence, I created {{tl|Mainpage date requested}} to compliment {{tl|Mainpage date to come}} and {{tl|Mainpage date}}. It works perfect for dated requests (ie. See ]). But I don't know how to integrate undated requests into it. Thoughts?<br><small>* I should also note that the date has to be in a cetain format in the header (ie. '''The Smashing Pumpkins (July 7)''') --'''] ]''' 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help...? == | |||
| When I try to split the suggested intro for ] into two paragraphs the way I want it, it refused to behave. It just sticking together into one big paragraph. What's the Hell is going on...? | |||
| ] <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have the same problem with my intro for ], that is on the page one tab over. It seems to work for some intros to articles, but not others.-] 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Try putting the closing <nowiki></div></nowiki> tags on a new line, separated from the text body. | |||
| :::Worked like a dandy. Thanks. | |||
| :::] <sup>]</sup> 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ridge Route?== | |||
| Can ] be put on the main page (obviously through the proper process on this page), or is it exempt because it has already been there? It was ] and ]. --] 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's already been on the main page, so I do not think it should go there again. ] 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Old FAs== | |||
| I am curious about whether any articles have been designated as not suitable for ] exposure. I went through ] and ] and added strike through tags to all ]s. Below are the remaining TFA eligible FAs with {{tl|ArticleHistory}} tags showing 2003 and 2004 promotion dates. If they are suitable, is there any reason why none of these have been on the main page? | |||
| List moved to ] due to length. | |||
| ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure what methodology you used, but you missed quite a few FFAs. Since your work is incomplete, it would be better IMO if you'd revert the strikes in archive. Further, several of the list above are currently at FAR, Lesch-Nyhan thankfully has not requested mainpage because it's dismally undercited, etc. I plan to FAR Quantum computer ASAP; it's a wreck. And so on ...] (]) 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A few of these lack a main page picture (William N. Page, Presuppositional apologitecs), but for the most part, no, I don't have any reason not to feature this on the main page. "If they are suitable, is there any reason why none of these have been on the main page" - ]. I make no effort to select older FAs for the main page, so the pool from which they are chosen will inevitably have a few that have been there longer than most. ] 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The algorythm I used was to look at ] and ] and check the discussion pages of each article without a main page date. Where did I go wrong? I.E., when you say I missed quite a few FFAs, could you be more specific. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What you did wrong is you're only striking in archives FFAs that meet your mainpage definition; you're not striking all FFAs, and a lot of the articles you *didn't* strike in archives are no longer Featured articles. Hence, ], ] and ] are now incorrect listings of FAs and FFAs; archives are now inacccurate. Also, I wish you would unstrike those and revert your work, because I track FFA's all over the place, and I don't intend to keep up with the strikes in archives. It muddies the water and creates yet another maintenance chore, which if not kept up to date, can confuse future editors. You have left the archives incorrect. ] (]) 16:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In fact, the more I think about it, if you don't revert your changes to archives (and unless no one disagrees), I will revert them. We don't need to track FFAs in yet another place, this will create additional future work, and confuse future editors. Archives track promotions; demotions are listed at FFA. Further, do you plan to stay on top of every re-promoted FFA? Because that is a lot of work. ] (]) 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you didn't notice the intent of the pages was for FFAs to be struck through. This is stated in the introduction to the pages I am going through. How will it confuse editors to strike through articles as the intro says? Does it confuse you? I am merely following the instructions in the intro. It is fairly easy to remove the <nowiki><s></nowiki> tags. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Right, it's easy to remove them. I would like to remove them because you are the only one who has added them, so the archives are now inaccurate. ] (]) 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Just to be clear, pages like ] are not really archives. They were created for and used by ], and I've left a note at ]. ] 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Thanks, Gimmetrow; then I'll leave it to Rick. If he's the only one who uses it, hopefully it won't be a problem as long as he knows the strikethroughs are not complete. ] (]) 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: They are not complete in the sense that I only checked FAs that have not been made TFAs. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't make sense to me that you don't want the strikethroughs. I concede many people may have looked at the page and not added strikethroughs. If you want to undo what I have done go ahead. I don't understand why. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding your other question on my talk page: none of Emsworth's articles are cited; Filiocht is no longer active and I doubt that his friends want to fight the vandalism his articles will get on the mainpage (ask them); Presuppositional apologetics is currently at FAR and Quantum computer will be soon; Action potential and Lesch are undercited and need to be FAR'd; Angmering is actively working on citing his articles and I'm sure he wouldn't want it on the main page now (ask him); Mav knows his articles need to be cited and is working on them; and so on. In other words, the list above has problems. With a large enough pool of FAs to choose from for the main page, I don't understand why you're doing this work. ] (]) 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone suggested a list of old FAs some time ago (er, sometime in 2005 - see ) to appear on the main page - the most obvious ones from the old list still remaining are ] and ], I think - but, as ] says, many of the older ones are not entirely up to "modern" standards (some are just plain bad; other just need a bit of spit and polish). The most obvious "fault" for the older ones is the dearth of inline citations, although we have been arguing for years about how serious a "fault" that is for relatively uncontentious articles like ] or ] or ]. But, for exampe, ] had a recent ]-fication, so should be fine. I am sure ]'s friends would be quite touched to see one of his fine articles on the Main Page. There are plenty of vandal-hunters out there. -- ] ] 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Feel free to add to the notes column if any of you have particular explanations about any individual article. I expect to get through Aug 2005 today and complete 2005 on Wed. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Tony, can you possibly move that lengthy list above to a subpage somewhere if you plan to keep growing it? ] (]) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I will move it to the TFA/R proposal page since it is related to that topic. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Better, thanks. ] (]) 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| At the time I created the by-year lists (], etc.) there were very few FFAs that had nomination histories. There are significantly more now (at least dozens). I haven't updated these lists to indicate FFAs in any organized sort of way (and haven't updated mainpage appearance dates in quite a long time). As far as I know, the main use for these lists is as input to ], which doesn't use the strikethrough as an indication of FFA vs. FA status (the script that creates the WBFAN list reads ] and considers any articles it finds there as FFA). So, my impression is the strikethroughs that Tony is adding is simply helping (although doing anything manually with the thousand or so FAs and the several hundred FFAs is a major pain). The by-year lists can be easily parsed, so it would not be difficult to write another script to read them and produce modified versions indicating FFAs (using strikethroughs or font color or anything anyone would like) based on ]. If anyone thinks this would be useful I'd be willing to do this (eventually). | |||
| Other than ] and ] (and the by-year lists and WBFAN), is there anywhere else featured and former featured articles are tracked? -- ] <small>(])</small> 00:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not that I know of. By the way, is your script handling the re-promoted FFAs at the bottom of the FFA list, who have new authors (different usually than the original author)? You can check by looking if Yomangani is the author on ], for example. If you're only using the by-year lists for generating WBFAN, I'm fine with whatever Tony does with it (although I still think the strikethroughs are going to confuse someone someday, since they won't be accurate and up to date, and that will probably end up in my lap :-) ] (]) 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The script does handle repromotions (WBFAN should have two stars, one for the original nom and one for the renom - ] has two for ] for this reason, which confuses some folks). In the repromotion case, both stars are blue (not rust), because articles are considered featured unless they're in FFA (but not in the repromotion list at the bottom). Note that this means neither nomination should be in a strikethrough font (i.e. strikethrough means this article is currently a former featured, rather than sometime after this promotion it became a former featured). If I write a script to update the strikethroughs, I could run it once a month (or so) so the strikethroughs ''would'' be kept up to date. BTW - if there's anything repetitive you do that might be automatable (not just "bot"-able) we should talk. -- ] <small>(])</small> 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::''In the repromotion case, both stars are blue (not rust), because articles are considered featured unless they're in FFA (but not in the repromotion list at the bottom).'' IMO, it's a mistake to show a demoted FA (FFA) as an FA in the by nominator lists. Often, FAs are demoted and re-promoted by another author; the original author no longer has an FA in that case. Can this be fixed ? ] (]) 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: (sorry, originally missed this comment) FFAs don't show up as FA in the by nominator lists (unless they've been repromoted). In the demote and repromote case, the original nominator did (at one point) successfully nominate the article. It's not a huge deal to me, but it seems kind of rude to want to forget that this happened because the article degraded or standards changed enough such that the article was demoted. If you really feel strongly about this, I'd suggest moving this discussion to ]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm becoming more confused by this conversation by the moment; it's morphing faster than I can keep up with :-)) I thought it was only a matter of whether the star was blue or rust, so I'm not following your comment above at all. We're not forgetting any of the FFAs, just showing them as rust rather than blue, no? ] (]) 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === WBFAN === | |||
| It is probably worth noting that ] allocates FAs to the person who successfully ''nominated'' an article at FAC, not the person who ''wrote'' it (for example, I did not "write" ], ], ], ], ], or ]). In any case, there many FAs don't have one single "primary" author. -- ] ] 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good point, ALoan. I don't think I've ''authored'' a single article I've nominated, although I've ''worked on'' all the ones I've nominated. I have a feeling this phenomenon has become common as there are more group collaborations than there were even last year at this time. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've added cross-checking to the script that generates the WBFAN list. Current anomalies are listed at ]. I suspect most of the last set (nomination history but neither FA or FFA) are articles that have been moved to new names since they were nominated (I'll investigate these - in all likelihood each one is also listed as either an FA or FFA without a nomination history). To fix these, I'll make the article name in the by-year nomination lists match the article name in FA or FFA. If anyone wants to help with this, feel free. -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Looks like case insensitivity would narrow that list. -] 03:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would, but article names are actually case sensitive. In any event, I have a script that cross checks a by-year list against WP:FA and WP:FFA. I've run the 2003 list against this and fixed all the anomalies except ] and ] (see ]). Doing this I've updated ] to indicate all the FFAs in strikethrough font. I'll do 2004-2007 in the next few days. -- ] <small>(])</small> 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am glad you have a script. I was going to do it manually over the next week or so. Will your script handle the repromoted FARs? ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the script handles repromoted FARs. What it does is create a new copy of one of the by-year lists by looking for each article in either WP:FA or WP:FFA. If the article is in WP:FFA the script puts it in strkethrough font. If the article is in neither FA or FFA, the script highlights the article. -- ] <small>(])</small> 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For example, marking 48 articles as FFAs replaces the 2005 list with the output of the script. Everything in this list that's in ] is now marked in strikethrough font, and if it's not marked in strikethrough font it's in ]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The by-year lists have now been fully updated with regard to FA vs. FFA status (all FFAs in these lists are in strikethrough font). The anomalies listed at ] have been pruned accordingly. If anyone is interested in chasing down where the FAs and FFAs in the anomalies list came from, that'd be great (I do not intend to do this). I may attempt to write a script to update the mainpage date for the articles in the by-year lists. The last time I thought about this it didn't look overly easy (suggestions welcome). -- ] <small>(])</small> 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As of today, they're out of date. Again, my concern is that these lists will confuse someone down the road unless someone intends to keep up with the daily changes, removing any demotions, and unstriking any re-promoted FFAs. There's more margin for error and confusion when we have lists in multiple places. We already have FA, FFA and each of their corresponding kept, removed, promoted, and archived archives, so this is now a seventh summary of FA promotions and demotions to be kept up with. What I can do is to fix your entire anomolies list (I now know where to find all the pieces), but I don't understand it. For example, ] and ] ] (]) 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The only way to make them current on a daily basis would be to run a bot that updates them, well, daily (or turn them into "special:" pages, which seems absurd to me). As far as I know, there are only three ways they can be out of date: | |||
| ::::# A new FA is promoted (this means the current year's by-year list is mssing an entry). I update them roughly monthly. If the current month is missing I think it's pretty obvious what the issue is. | |||
| ::::# A current FA is demoted (so some historic entry should be in strikethrough font but isn't). Monthly updates means this "problem" persists for at most a month, and on average 15 days (or so). | |||
| ::::# A current FFA is repromoted (so some historic entry in strikethrough font shouldn't be, and the renomination is missing). Again, monthly updates means the problem persists for an average of about 15 days. | |||
| ::::Per the exchange on my talk page, the very recently promoted ones show up as anomalies because several days elapsed between updating the by-year lists and running the script that generates WBFAN (which now produces an anomalies list). Backing up a bit, the only reason I created the by-year lists is to have parsable input to be able to generate WBFAN. If keeping track of FA vs. FFA in these lists is too onerous I'm fine with not doing it. Backing up more, I think all of this argues for more automation in the promotion and demotion processes. I really think we ought to consider writing a bot for Mark to run when he promotes an article (that could be extended to do pretty much whatever anyone wants) and another bot for whoever it is who decides to demote an article to run when an article is demoted. Doing any manual updates in response to either of these actions is kind of dumb since computers are really good bookkeepers. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That would be GimmeBot, and the work Gimmetrow has done to create ArticleHistory templates :-) It works on the FAC and FAR archives as FACs are promoted/archived and FARs are kept/demoted. That's why I'm worried about this extra list. I have an idea that should work for both of us; how about if you just put a big note at the top of these lists created only for WBFAN, explaining exactly what they are and that they aren't maintained regularly, and redirecting people to the actual FA and FFA pages and archives ? That will assuage my concern about confusion over these lists. ] (]) 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I take mild umbrage at your suggestion these aren't maintained regularly. Monthly is certainly regularly - it is more often than the site's search index used to be updated (for example). The lists already link to the actual FA archives. And you do mean ] and not ] (right?). Last I heard, Mark doesn't run GimmeBot, so there's a delay between promotion/demotion and what it does (which is actually significant, since a FAC doesn't look closed until after GimmeBot runs, which means comments can be entered at FACs after the article has been promoted ). How about if I talk to Gimmetrow about adding some more code to GimmeBot (and Mark again, about him running it), and if Gimmetrow won't or can't extend its functionality then we can add whatever disclaimer you'd like. Of course, it's a wiki, so you can add whatever disclaimer you'd like anytime you'd like. -- ] <small>(])</small> 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I figured out a reasonable way to do this, and have updated the by year lists to include main page appearance dates. I can (trivially) generate lists like ] for 2005-2007 if anyone's interested. -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Great work. I was wondering about human error. I noticed many FAs had wrong promotion dates in their {{tl|ArticleHistory}} templates or omitted main page dates from the yearly lists. Does either of these types of errors cause you problems. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::When the articlehistory template was introduced (before most of it was handled by a bot), there was confusion about which date to use. Some of the tags, therefore, may use the data the article was nominated, instead of the date the nom was closed. ] 06:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The yearly lists are current with respect to mainpage appearance dates (as of a couple of days ago). These lists are not updated daily, but can be updated much more frequently (since I now have a tool to do the updates). Like my suggestion above regarding promoting/demoting FAs, I've suggested elsewhere that daily updates could be done by a site-wide daily bot with a list of tasks that could be extended. Updating the mainpage appearance dates in the by-year lists could be added to the daily bot's task list, but we don't currently have such a thing (or, rather, we have many such things that are done independently by a variety of folks running separate bots and if any of these folks stop running their bots the tasks the bots do stop being done until somebody notices and adds the "no longer done thing" to their bot's tasklist). -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We have a bot that maintains FAC and FAR archives, updates talk page templates, and closes FACs and FARs. You have created a separate list that is doing functions beyond promoting and demoting featured articles. That's why I'm concerned about the potential for confusion from creating a separate, "extra-official" archive, apart from the FAC and FAR archives which are handled by GimmeBot/Gimmetrow. ] (]) 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Does "we" mean Gimmetrow or do you also run GimmeBot or do you mean en.wikipedia? As far as I know, the only things that are actually official are ] and ]. "You" (corresponding to whatever "we" you meant) have unofficially added talk page templates to the mix, and in the process have convinced Mark to trust GimmeBot to do the FAC archive updates (which, as I note above, has introduced a window between promotion and FAC closure, which I'm concerned about). The by-year lists and WBFAN are exactly equivalent to, and are exactly as "official" as, the talk page notes and the <nowiki>{{featured article}}</nowiki> template (i.e. not). If "we" are going to claim GimmeBot is official, then its source needs to be posted (which would provide a way to extend its functionality) and it should be running on a host supported and maintained by WMF (what happens if Gimmetrow "quits"?). This probably sounds like I'm arguing, which is not the intent. I think automation is a good thing. However, you (or Gimmetrow) don't ] talk page updates any more than I do. Similarly, I don't own the by-year lists or WBFAN any more than you do. -- ] <small>(])</small> 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: (below) | |||
| <deindent> Rick, whatever ya'll (you=those who speak "bot", "script" and the like — I don't) do with bots and such isn't the issue I'm trying to address. My point is that we (we=Misplaced Pages editors) now have another file to keep track of — a potential source of confusion — and I (at least) don't intend to keep up with the strikes for demotions and unstrikes for re-promotions on yet another archive file, when that info is already tracked at FA, FFA, and their archives not to mention User Feature Historian. The discussion started because Tony began striking articles, but the job wasn't complete. I'm sorry if my point seems to have been extended beyond what I'm trying to say. GimmeBot was intended to make Raul's, Marskell's, Joelr31's and FAC/FAR nominators' work easier; it has. I'm sure, as always, that Gimmetrow will be willing to do anything he can to simplify processes. Best regards, ] (]) 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : What is going on here? If Rick wants to process the FAC/FAR archives for use with WBFAN, I don't see a problem. I also don't see a problem with this so-called "window", since discussions were never marked as closed or with a result before. If it's really a problem, it's easy enough to stop marking them and go back to how it was. ] 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually ... I'm not really sure anymore :-) I started out only saying I didn't want to keep track of the same data in more than one place, but I'm not too clear on what the discussion is about anymore. ] (]) 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FACs nominated here == | |||
| I reverted the addition of an FAC (not yet an FA), on the assumption it creates more work for Raul654 to have to sort out articles that aren't FA yet. My removal was reverted. I believe we'll have a very confusing situation if we allow a precedent that FACs are nominated for today's featured article. There are often 70 or 80 FACs; it will be a chore to sort out if we have them all nominated for today's featured article before promotion. ] (]) 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree, and have removed the FAC entry. --] 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I wouldn't nominate an article that couldn't be an FA by the time I requested, and I would remove my nomination if (somehow) the article failed FAC. There's '''no''' criteria either way; and '''since the Request page started out as a Talk page, I'm assuming that any discussion/suggestions are allowed'''. Raul has the final say; just because I've stuck it here doesn't mean my suggestion has any authority. As for the precedent (at least, my past noms), I can only find for now. The histories on these request pages are scattered everywhere. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 17:20Z</small> | |||
| **Yes, Raul has the last word, but we have to remember that if you can do it, so can the other 70 to 80 FACs, and that could become unmanageable. ] (]) 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***It's a discussion page. You have no authority in removing other people's comments from discussion pages. You also have no basis for your removal of an FAC that can definitely be an FA by the time of the requested date. '''What criteria''' are you citing in removing my suggestion from a discussion page? I've cited '''precedence''' (both the fact that this page used to be at a Talk page, meaning '''you don't just go around deleting other people's suggestions''') and the fact that '''it has been accepted in the past'''. So, are you denying precedence, or citing other unnamed criteria? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 17:23Z</small> | |||
| ****Generally, non FA's are always immediate removed by Raul and/or others. *This* is a talk page, the FA nom page isn't, and frivolous requests for non-FAs have been removed from there many times. (that's also a better precedence, rather than a non-FA nom that gone unnoticed). Thanks. --] 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Brian, three editors have questioned your addition, and Raul has been consulted. You've reverted twice. Do you really want to edit war over something that will be resolved shortly? The intent of ] is to prevent *any* edit warring; not to excuse three reverts without discussion. ] (]) 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****First, it takes two to edit war. Second, 3 > 1 is not a valid argument. What is your criteria for removal? Ganging up on one user to support a baseless removal, rather than actually '''discussing''' the matter may solve the problem for now, but it'll happen again. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 17:33Z</small> | |||
| *****And you've now reverted three good faith edits. ] (]) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******Those reverts were in response to your deletions of my good faith suggestion on a discussion page. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 17:34Z</small> | |||
| ******I don't think it's likely to happen again, unless Raul wants it to happen; I've never seen it happen before, and your interpretation of the page seems somewhat unique. It's not a talk page. The idea is that Raul shouldn't have to sort through 80 FACs to schedule the main page. What is the urgency, anyway? Raul will weigh in soon enough. ] (]) 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******I'm fine with Raul's response, but I figured that since it would be featured by the time Raul even noticed my entry, I don't see wha the problem is. The page started out as a talk page, and the precedent was set then. Why should everything change just because someone decided to move it to its own page for clarity? No policies, guidelines, or criteria have been decided. It's still a discussion page. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 17:44Z</small> | |||
| ********I think the problem is clear; if you can do it, so can 80 other FACs, and that creates an unmanageable task for Raul. ] (]) 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *********Since when does Raul even have to get involved? I nominated it, and it will be featured before Raul has to think about it; if somehow it's not featured, I'll remove the request. As for your "80 other FACs", there's no evidence that's the case. I've done this in the past successfully, and there still aren't "80 other FACs" on the request page, so clearly your slippery slope argument isn't accurate. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 20:53Z</small> | |||
| *As I was the one that noted the article's status, I apologize for any resulting confusion. By the way, ], also requested, is also not an FA, and not even an FAC. I'd remove it myself, but if it should be discussed first, here goes. ]<small> (]·])</small> 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I'd note that it's not even in FAC, and not likely to be featured by the requested date. That's a different situation from ] though. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 17:54Z</small> | |||
| While I appreciate your enthusiasm, Brian, please list only featured articles on this page. The chances that I'll make a mistake and put a non-featured article on the main page will go up dramatically if people start adding non-featured articles here. ] 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *It'll be featured (or removed from the requests page if not featured) before you even notice it; that's my point. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 18:19Z</small> | |||
| Let's clear up the wording at the top of the page then; I inserted the word "featured" once, and Brian reverted it. Someone should tighten up the wording. ] (]) 18:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see the reason to make a restriction when it's not necessary. My FAC will either be an FA or removed from the requests before Raul could select it for the main page. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 18:28Z</small> | |||
| **The need is so that others won't make the same mistake you made, leading to the potential for mistakes, as mentioned by Raul. ] (]) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I made a mistake? Where? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 18:41Z</small> | |||
| **** No, Raul might. Raul does not necessarily use the suggested dates. If he sees an article listed, and doesn't realize it's not FA, he might mistakenly schedule it for main page next week. ] 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****When has he done this in the past? Has he really selected an article over a month out of sequence, skipping all the non-date requests in favor of using a future date request early? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 18:45Z</small> | |||
| ******Many times. And, he sorts through the articles often as he's trying to plan (not just on the day he announces scheduled dates); filling the page up with non-FAs just gives him more to sort through and makes his job harder. ] (]) 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******First, I'm not filling the page up with non-FAs. I've only nominated one. Second, can you be more specific than "many times"? You're actually saying he's selected an article '''dated''' for a month in the future, and '''skipped over''' every '''non-dated''' request that was in line before that, for no stated reason? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 18:53Z</small> | |||
| ****** Yes, that's more or less what I'm stating. ] 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******Can you link me to some evidence of this? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 20:04Z</small> | |||
| ****** Is that necessary? Can't you trust us on this one? (Digging up diffs would be a bit tedious as this page gets tons of edits.) ] 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******I've provided links (which took me a while to dig up). Why can't you do the same? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 20:34Z</small> | |||
| I have been watching this page for several months (I have an FA article nominated on it). There are usually several articles a month that are not FA but are nominated (or less frequently that have allready been on the Main Page and are thus ineleigible to appear again). They are all removed pretty quickly. The rule is simple - only FA articles that have not already been on the Main Page can be nominated. FAC is not FA (don't count your chickens before they hatch). Hope this helps, ] 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Were these past examples FAC's that could have been an FA well before the date requested? Where is this "rule" you speak of, and how did a discussion page come to have such rules (granted, it's a discussion page that was moved from the Talk namespace, but it was only moved so that ] could be used for other purposes). — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 19:03Z</small> | |||
| **Seredipity raises its lovely head - here's a diff of just such a revert from a few minutes ago. They are usually just people who nominate an article without bothering to check if it is FA (or if it is FA, if it has apready appeared on the Main Page). It is called today's '''Featured''' article, so it has to be featured to get on the page of requests. I don't know of any rule, besides the obvious (FA only) and the fact that the decision about what is featured and what is on the Main Page rests with Raul (who does a difficult job very well). As for article requests here, ] has been on this page since March of 2006. It is not like the butcher's, where you get in line and appear on the Main Page in the order you entered the line / took a number. Hope this clears things up for you, ] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***As I said, Harry Potter isn't even FAC, so it's not related. Also, I was asking for precedence, not a reversion done by someone after seeing the discussion here. You've been watching this page for the past several months; '''what "several articles a month" are you referring to?''' '''Can you name them?''' The rest of your argument is based merely on the title of the page and your interpretation of it, not on any policy/guidelines/criteria. I can easily counter that by saying that '''by June 7th, it will be a Featured Article''', and on that day, it will be '''today's featured article'''. The only rule I'm aware of is that the article on the main page under "TFA" has to be a Featured Article. There is no such rule for a discussion page; especially for an article that will be featured by the time of the requested date. As for ], I'm not sure what part of my reply requested that you supply a non-date nom that's been sitting on the request page for a long time.... I requested that you supply a dated nom that wasn't featured on it's requested date, but instead skipped other non-dated noms to be featured sooner; this was the gist of SandyGeorgia's statement... but still no evidence. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 20:22Z</small> | |||
| ****Well, IMHO, you still can't say it ''will'' be FA June 7th—what you can do is make a ''very reasonable assumption'' that it will be, since it has apparently garnered more than enough support for promotion, but I still think your statement is jumping the gun a bit. If there is no "rule" stating that only already promoted FAs may be nominated for TFA, then fine; but "practically an FA due to overwhelming support" is still not the same as "promoted to FA on day X, let's put it on the Main Page". ]<small> (]·])</small> 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****It will be featured by June 7th. If it's not, I will remove the suggestion from this page (obviously). But it will be featured before then, as all my previous FAC's have been by their requested dates. I never said it's "practically an FA due to overwhelming support". — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 20:51Z</small> | |||
| ****How can you counter by saying on June 7th it will be '''today's featured article''', when the final decision is made by Raul? How can you ignore ] by giving the reason, it is not even an FAC, when your nom is not even an FA? Is it impossible for ] or for even a '''one-line stub''' to become '']'' after listing in the requests page? Why are they not allowed? A stub or a GA or an FAC - all these belong to same category, that is, non-FA. The logic for making TFA request is consistent and must always be consistent, and it is only for FAs and certainly not for non-FAs, irrespective of whether that article is FAC or likely to be promoted or a one-line stub. Thanks, - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I also note 4 reverts by ]. Breaking ] is not a good practice. I've placed a 3RR note on his talk page. Thanks. --] 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I only count 3. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:11Z</small> | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| Here you go. Thanks. --] 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You seem to misunderstand 3RR. It only applies to reverting the same content over and over again. Tangential discussions/reversions have never been counted toward the total. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:16Z</small> | |||
| **No, you are wrong. Every reversion is counted toward the total. Reverts need not be over the same content. Each and every undo-ing of other editor's edits, is counted as a revert. So, you have clearly violated ] in this case. - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You should revisit ] and read it. I assume as an admin, you had to learn the policies. By no means is your edit warring justifiable. Thanks. --] 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyone can edit any page they want and slightly modify policy; that doesn't make it historically true (policy, after all, is based on history, not on what a given page says at a given time). 3RR has never been considered a tally per page, only per block of text. Otherwise half the editors of ] should be blocked because of how we constructively revert eachothers edits while suggesting new edits. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:20Z</small> | |||
| ::::You DID revert, not "slightly-modify", in the middle of the edit war. To re-interpret 3RR, visit the appropriate talk page. Thanks. --] 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't need to re-interpret anything. 3RR has never meant what someone has (temporarily) modified the page to say it means. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:27Z</small> | |||
| ::::::Since you disagree about this, I suggest you raise this point at I filed about this. Thank you. --] 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So you're not happy with the dispute being settled by Raul's decision (which I'll of course agree to, since '''nobody''' but him has the final say)? You would also prefer I be blocked for my ignorance of every slight wording change to ]? This could've been settled by simply discussing the matter. Nobody needed to revert my suggestion, but they did, again, and again, and again, and again. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:42Z</small> | |||
| ::::::::Please raise the issue at the ANB/3RR, and at other places where ] policy discussions take place. Thank you. --] 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You needlessly escalated a closed matter. But, Raul654 understands that it's a closed matter, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you! — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:52Z</small> | |||
| ===Post-Raul's decision=== | |||
| All right, it looks like Raul has had his final say, and I'll stand by that. I didn't appreciate being gang banged though. Edit warring, whether by one individual, or by 4, serves nothing. When ] is finally Featured, I may decide to nominate it for ]th instead, which of course is the 7th anniversary of the death of ], the great philosopher who forwarded several atheistic philosophies, and the 365th birthday of Isaac Newton. — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:27Z</small> | |||
| == Could this page just be a list? == | |||
| Given that Raul generally and often doesn't follow the suggested dates, the submission template for this page is largely ]. Can that be done away with? | |||
| Which leads to a more radical suggestion. I suspect Raul doesn't make significant use of any info on this page that isn't found in the Table of Contents, namely the list of articles and *suggestions* for dates. Could this page be simplified to just that - a list of feautured articles that the authors or maintainers consider ready for the main page? See also and ]. ] 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *When has Raul not followed the suggestions for dates? Often? Can you link some diffs? — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 20:32Z</small> | |||
| :: Fine, I looked for edits by Raul to the page, and found a couple shrubberies for you: | |||
| ::*April 2 Raul Germany for April 7, had been requested for June 6-8. | |||
| ::* Feb 11, Raul Oriel College for February 24, had been requested for April 24. | |||
| ::* Feb 11, Raul selected Shadow of the Colossus for February 22, had been requested for October 18. | |||
| :: Satisfied? ] 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep. Thanks! — <small>]] • 2007-04-18 22:56Z</small> | |||
| Historically, I do try to use the suggestions, but it's getting to the point where there are way, way, way too many of them. In fact, I'm generally not happy with how this page is set up. I've been liking it less and less since the (IMO) very bad decision to split it into two halves - one for date-specific requests and one for general ones. ] 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Cool idea, but something else bothers me. Why are people writing support for an article they nominated? I go down the line of articles and see things along the line of "support because I nominated it" and "support for this date." This would be fine, but I didn't find any real opposes. Why bother supporting then? To show how many people worked on a particular article? To state the implied? I'm slightly confused. Maybe a list ''would'' be better.--] (]) 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :i propose to (a) go back to the pre-split version of the page, as this page is supposed to help raul654 and not hinder him, and (b) remove all "votes" from all requests as per "this is not a vote" at the top of the page to discourage people from doing it and make the page a bit more navigable. ] 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Since this page is basically for Raul I'd say we chance it to whatever he wants. ] 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm just going to go ahead a turn it into a list. And while I'm at it remove all vote comments. ] 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What about the thumb-sized images? Where do we specify those? It's nice that the list seems shorter, but we still need a place to specify those images, and perhaps see how the whole thing looks like with the images.--] 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Such a major change should first be discussed in detail and I certainly can't see any consensus here that the page should be turned into a list. -- ] | |||
| :I also wonder how useful the condensed introduction is / was. It seems to me that Raul or whoever now has to generate the intro for each article from the lead section (whereas before there was at least an intro in place to start from). If the suggested intros are not here, is there someplace else they could be available for interested parties? Each article's talk page perhaps? ] 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ok I tried changing it but it seems 82.2.136.124 want to keep it the way it is. So how about we have a vote on it? ] 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Opposed''' — I'm sorry to say this, Bole2/Buc, but you have totally ignored the other editors in this discussion. First of all, I asked you above, "What about the thumb-sized images?" Anyways, therefore I'm "opposed" to your ideas at this point.--] 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry I didn't reslize you were addressing me specifically. User talk pages are better for things like that. ] 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Criteria for TFA == | |||
| Hi everyone. I've been editing for only a few months (I think my first edit was November or December 2006) and still think of myself as a New Wikipedian. I began editing with one goal in mind - to get a particular article to FA status - a goal that was achieved in February. I guess I've become a Wiki-addict though because now I do find myself working on other articles.:-) In the meantime, I did nominate my first endeavor for TFA and have been waiting patiently (and hoping). The recent discussions on this page and the discussion on the FA page are interesting as I try to increase my understanding of how it all works. In the 2 months since I nominated my article for TFA, I've seen nominations that have come later selected...and I've been wondering if Raul has some kind of criteria or formula (city, country, biography, movie, etc.) for TFA selections. I guess what I'm really asking for is reassurance that my article has as good a chance as the next TFA nomination. I mean, if my nomination is sitting in the queue a year from now, can I pretty much assumne it will never be selected? Is there a maximum amount of months a nomination can sit in the queue? Thanks in advance for any light that can be shed on this for me. ] 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Certain subjects take longer to get to the main page than others. We have relatively few math articles, so those tend to go up on the main page relatively quickly after promotion. Music, media, and war (being that we have quite a lot of them) tend to take longer. See ] ] 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you Raul. Your thoughts have provided more understanding and reassurance. ] 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism/tampering?== | |||
| I dind't support this article but I notced when I commented on ] there were 4-5 supports which have since been removed and only my oppose remains. See before: and look at it now. My vote is the ony one there now, something fishy is going on here. ] 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| as per the top of the page, '''THIS PAGE IS NOT A VOTE'''. so dont vote please. Anything along the lines of "support, great article" or "oppose, rubbish article" will be deleted. constructive comments/discussion are ok. {{unsigned|86.27.123.52}} | |||
| :This must be the person who deleted all the comments. ] 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reorder chronollogically == | |||
| What was the purpose of doing that? You place something at the top, you're going to reasonably expect it will remain there for a while for people to see. ] 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I thought that's how it was supposed to be done, to make it easier for Raul to see which dates are requested. — <small>]] • 2007-05-05 14:03Z</small> | |||
| as raul654 stated above, "I've been liking it less and less since the (IMO) very bad decision to split it into two halves - one for date-specific requests and one for general ones". now that the split has been removed, i'm not sure if it still makes sense to "reorder chronologically". | |||
| :If we've done the date re-ordering regularly, no problem. If we haven't done this regularly, we should wait for more comments and Raul's input. My reason for reverting was pretty pedestrian: I had just nominated one, and I wanted it to hang around at the top of the page for a while to see if it would get comments. I posted, and 24 hrs later it had been shuffled to number 51. No fun :(. Like any meta process, I think it's fair if things get moved down/shuffled off organically. Raul can easily keep track of dates looking at the TOC. And I don't dispute that re-combining the date request makes sense. ] 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would prefer that requests here are left in the order in which they are made. Not only is it less work for all involved, but it makes it easier for me to give priority to the older ones. ] 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Date requests seem a bit redundant== | |||
| A few months ago I noticed ] was a FA that had not yet appeared on the main page. So I thought it would be a good idea to request it appear there on the day of the 2007 contest. Hence I placed an appropriate date request on here. It was on there on for about 6 months, so assuming he checks this page regularly he must have seen it. However initially Raul selected a different article for the requested date. I first I thought he simply different want to put it on there since it would after all have been two music article in a week. How after dropping him a note on his talk page Raul immediately compiled with my request. Which begs the question, was there really any point to placing a date request on this page? | |||
| So here’s my idea, remove all date requests from this page and instead inform people that if they have a specific date in mind to drop Raul a note on his talk page when it comes close to that time. | |||
| ] 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update''' My piont has been prooved by the latest selections. Three articles where requested for the 16th, one for the 15th and one for the 19th. Not one of them has been selected. ] 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discontinuing the use of this page== | |||
| In the last 8 days, I've gotten 9 seperate threads on my talk page asking why didn't I schedule X article for Y date. It's getting to the point where every time I schedule main page articles, I get a bunch of requests on my talk page asking if I could change my decision about a certain date, and reschedule, etc. It's DRIVING ME CRAZY, and I've reached my tipping point. The cause of these problems is clearly this page. Unless someone presents a really compelling case for keeping it, I'm going to be shutting down this page very soon. ] 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I suggested above making the page a simple list. My issue is that even if an article passes FAC, the editors may still wish to add/edit some aspects before it hits the main page. One of the more notable examples is ], where the editors took another three months after FAC to get it ready. I think it's useful to have a list of those articles that the article editors feel is ready. The list could be headed by a strong disclaimer that any suggested dates are just suggestions, and if they don't happen don't complain. | |||
| : Since you generally take the lead section of the article rather than whatever suggested text is here, that should go. The suggested image should be simply linked, possibly just inline. A bulleted list of articles with inline linked image and a suggested date, no voting, no comments, and entirely advisory. Would that work? ] 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::as 99.9% of featured articles are "articles that the article editors feel is ready", it would be more economical and efficient to just use this page to BLACKLIST those articles that are NOT ready. ] 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Some editors may be overly enthusiastic, but "99.9%" is extreme. Articles certainly do pass FAC with deficiencies that the editors still plan to address. ] 17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: 99.9%, 99%, 90%, the point is the same: this page becomes far easier to manage when it only lists blacklisted articles instead of whitelisted articles. ] 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Raul, how about sharing the duties with other people? If you don't think you can handle the job (and I certainly think it is inappropriate to give the whole job to one person in the first place), might I suggest you allow the community to rethink the idea of having one person control the TFA process. This page is a wonderful way to allow input of other people as to which article goes onto the main page, and shutting it down would only make your job more autocratic. People leaving messages on your talk page is not the problem of this page, it's a logistical error in the fact that one person is controlling the day-to-day scheduling of a humongous duty. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In response to myself, I don't see any problems with users going ahead and scheduling things themselves (i.e. directly placing the content for a specific day right into that day's template). If they see that there is an article that they would like to put in on a certain date, they do it, or ask an admin to do it for them. People, like Raul, who frequent the pages would be able to do a last look at the Templates for that week to ensure that there is a good image and everything is the way it should be. Other than that, I don't see why there is a need for one person to do this job by himself. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Request denied. The problem isn't having one person do it - the problem is having multiple mutually contradictory requests, having to schedule and resechedule the same dates over and over again, 'etc. In short, the problem is that there are too many articles chasing too few main page spots. "Let's let everyone fight it out over them" is guaranteed to make the problem worse, not better. ] 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The anon's suggestion, making this page into a blacklist, is thought provoking. I don't particularly like it (the number of cases of an article not ready to go on the main page is *very* rare and I like to keep it that way. Having a formal list would only encourage it), but it's the kind of outside-the-box thinking I'm looking for. ] 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Since there is sufficient notice on the talk page of an article of the date it will be featured on the main page, any objections to that can then be addressed on your talk page, i.e. if an article is not felt to be ready, which, like you said, would be rare. So I don't see a problem with discontinuing this request process. ] 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this page is discontinued, wouldn't it cause ''more'' people to pester Raul654 at his talk page? He'll still get people asking for specific dates, plus he'll get people complaining that their articles aren't ready. ] 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I was just going to say. By disallowing people the correct place to discuss the possibilities of a TFA, they will be more likely to ask on your talkpage Raul. This certainly wouldn't solve anything, unless what you are hoping to do by doing this is to gain more power in the TFA field. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't object to doing away with this. I've said before it was a complete waste of my time filling in the template. However, this page ought to have some use to Raul - why did you create this page initially? Was it to keep the date requests off your talk page? Perhaps the date requests could be merged into the FAC process along with a strong disclaimer that they may very well not be honored. What do you think would be helpful, Raul? If nothing is going to help you, then this process is pointless. | |||
| Quite frequently, I find FAs that are passable but not ideal. Personally, if I were one of the article authors I wouldn't want such an article on the main page, but it appears I'm in the minority on this. ] 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Some years ago, I created ], and people started using its talk page to make requests. I initially created this page simply so they'd stop using that talk page. | |||
| :The problem, as I see it, is that requesting a date has become too common. It's almost a de-facto next-step in the FA process. When people don't get their request, they complain - to the point of me getting more than one message per day about it. I don't mind taking requests, provided there aren't an overwhelming number of them. ] 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A find/replace shows 886 of a current 1393 have been on the mainpage. If we stopped promoting right now, we could run two per day for 250 days. Perhaps a main FA in the form we have now and a small box for a minor FA. I know some people get twisted about this, but the video games etc. could go to the small box. | |||
| ::Throwing open the dates to anybody is a very bad idea. ] 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why is that? As long as the pages are protected, only admins could edit the pages. All the user who wants a page for that day would have to do is put the suggestion on the talk page, and an admin will do it. What makes this job so difficult or so confusing that one person has to do it himself? If that one person then admits that he is overwhelmed by all the requests, then obviously all those people who are requesting or asking questions are not getting answers back, and I feel the system and those who use it now are at a loss because of a lack of response. Seriously, I don't know how to say this in any other way but the blatant "Raul should not be the sole TFA/FA coordinator." <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'll respond to that. The issue is that the date requests are not the only factor in scheduling. In addition, we want a mix of topics and geographic connections, so we don't have three articles in a row on English soccer teams. That means the sequence of articles, and what has been on the main page in the week or so before and after, play a rather large factor. Apparently, editors need to be made more aware of the relatively small role that their own date preferences play in the process. ] 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They don't respond because the reasons are blatantly obvious. Throwing open the doors to everyone means there is no central quality control, that we could easily end up with 10 US related articles in a row, or a half-dozen biographies, or sports articles. The write ups would not be consistent from day to day, the "last 3 FAs" would probably be incorrect since people would not be filling them in in order. And that doesn't even mention the edit warring that would occur. So, are those enough obvious consequences of your bad idea? ] 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That settled, is two worth thinking about? ] 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Other processes (like the collaboration of the week) which have bifurcated their work have found the end result to be disasterous. For this reason, I am against having multiple featured articles for any given day. ] 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, I'd had that thought. At the same time, part of why people shoot for an FA is because they know they can get their work read by hundreds and at least glanced at by tens of thousands. So I dunno. If the number that have not been mainpaged continues to pile up the notes on your talk page are only going to get worse. ] 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think preventing people altogether from requesting dates would not be a good thing. So if this page is to close, I think a replacement system would need to be arranged first. ] 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, from what I see, there are two purposes for this page. The first one is the requests themselves, and the second one is to double-check the blurbs. So, perhaps splitting this page into two would work? The first page would be a calendar-like page (similar in format to the calendars used by the ]), where one can list FAs for consideration (with the caveat that they may be disregarded at will). The second purpose could be addressed by this page. | |||
| :: That said, there are a bunch of "don't forget me"-type of requests. Those could be dealt with as well. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like that suggestions, as it mixes the ideas of both mine and the current one. Users can freely put into place the FAs that they want, in clear view of the other ones for that month/year, and then they can discuss previous decisions on another page, with the final decision left up to a group of people (note: group) who will then ensure that everything for the next, say, week is up to snuff and ready to go onto the main page. I think this is a fair compromise. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(In reply to Jared's already rejected idea) No, for the same reasons already noted above. ] 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(In reply to Titoxd) I'm not sure I like the idea of creating another request page when the purpose of this thread was to shut down the one already have that isn't working right. ] 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, Raul; I don't understand how this page could be making your job more difficult. It suggests articles, dates, and Main Page summaries. It would seem the only thing you have to do is copy the summary (presuming it's reasonable) to the appropriate template, protect it, and move on. You obviously cannot fulfill every request, particularly when two (or three) requests are made for the same date, but the reason people complain is that it sometimes looks like you're not even taking the time to look at the date requests (i.e. for May 16, when you didn't choose any of the three articles requested for that date). If you're not going to look at the date requests, then yes, this page ought to be abolished; they just give people false hopes. If you don't have the time to take care of the featured articles, share the responsibility. But alas, you have refused to do that on multiple occasions. And thus, I cannot have any sympathy for you, pending a compelling explanation. -- ''']''' 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Believe it or not, there was a time not too long ago that people were content to have their promoted, and with the understanding that it would eventually be on the main page. There was no need to make a seperate request. I want to go back to that way of doing things. ] 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that what's best for wikipedia though? ] 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''A Thought''': I just want to point out that under the guidance of (a few) people, ] runs quite well, with people dropping in their ideas, it getting shunted to the main page. While FAs would only be one to a page, I'm sure this would still be less painful if we restructure TFA to such a modicum. ]<sup><nowiki>(</nowiki><small>]</small> / <small>]</small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And to respond to myself, since I know Raul's gonna say no, honestly, if you want to shut it down, why don't you just let an admin or 'crat who '''wants''' to keep this alive do what he wants? If you're getting annoyed with it all, I'm sure there would be others willing to take your place. ]<sup><nowiki>(</nowiki><small>]</small> / <small>]</small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :DYK has a massive throughput - 15 to 20 (or more) articles are picked per day, with three of four updates every 24 hours. The workload needs to be spread. Similarly, ITN is updated on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps SA and the featured picture are the nearest analogues, although SA also has multiple entries. How do they work? | |||
| :TFA picks ''one'' article ''per day'' - clearly that is rather an important choice. I suspect it would be chaos if anyone could do it (and it was tending to be chaos before Raul654 started to do it). -- ] ] 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would '''support''' shutting this page down. ] 21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Oh dear - the idea of the requests page was to avoid Raul654 having to deal with the stream of messages on his talk page requesting him to consider an article for the main page. Now that stream seems to have been replaced by another stream asking him why he has not picked an article for the date requested. (I rather suspect, incidentally, that simply deleting this page would revive the original problem, so some sort of replacement will be necessary if it goes. The requests used to be made at ] until it was to ] and then Raul654 the current requests subpage last May.) | |||
| Perhaps we need to decentralise this, and put articles with an expressed date preference elsewhere? People could list here articles with no date preference, but, say, a subpage could be created for each date, where the articles requested for that date could be added - that is, aset of draft TFAs running in parallel to the live ones? So, for example, ] would contain the actual Main Page blurb, but suggestions could be made at ]. -- ] ] 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, Raul may be figuring this wrong—his talk page will likely be flooded if this page ceases to be. "Believe it or not, there was a time not too long ago that people were content to have their promoted, and with the understanding that it would eventually be on the main page." But people have no assurance it will be on the main page anymore because we're producing more than one per day; note the FA stats are deceptive because it's promotions less FARC. We actually promote more than forty a month (and then we had that weird spike in February). | |||
| :Perhaps we need to frame it this way: how can we assure people that their successful FAC will get ''some'' exposure ''somewhere'' on the main page even if not as the TFA? ] 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I admit that I am operating off the premise that most of the people requesting on this page won't go to my talk page to request one if this page was eliminated. I further admit the possibility that this presumption is in error, but I think on the whole, I'm right - that the requests here are simply a being done in a de-facto manner. ] 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The best option so far (besides eliminating this page outright) is one I suggested a while back - to eliminate the date request part. People would be strictly prohibited from requesting a particular date. That way, people can request articles, but the whole premise of "I didn't get my date" becomes a moot point. So far, I beyond eliminating this page netirely, this is the option I like best. ] 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've observed the problem, and think it's the result of an out-of-control notion that certain articles must be featured on certain days. I also don't think the process should be decentralized, as that would result in more problems. I suggest the page should eliminate the date requests, and it should be simply spelled out, very clearly, that articles go on the main page when they go, period. ] (]) 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict)Surely that is essentially the same as shutting the page down? If the assumption is that every FA appears on the main page at some point, why list it as a request if you can't request a date? The only point of having the page would then be to request that an FA not be listed, requests that it would appear would be few and far between (although if we're invoking ownership you can stick any of mine in that category as I'm indifferent to them appearing on the main page again, most will have been there in DYK in a former life). What about just highlighting it as a point of etiquette on this page not to complain to Raul654 if he doesn't select your article for a requested date, or not to expect an answer if you do? ]] 00:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Someone suggested about a year ago that the whole process of main page requests be rethought based on the assumption that pretty much all FA authors want their articles to be placed on the main page. With that in mind, having a requests page at all is redundant. Instead, the proposal went, the requests page should be reserved for people to request that an FA ''not'' be put on the main page. This could be for the reasons given by the anon above (the article is not felt ready yet), or it could be for folks to note when they'll be out of town and won't be able to monitor the article for vandalism and nonhelpful changes. Why not adopt this approach now? — ] (]) 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>(To the comment above the one above.)</small> But don't you think there should be some sort of theme to it all? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to have ] appear on July 4 or ] appear on August 14? I mean, certainly it's not always going to be themed, and not always will a themed article get its day, but shouldn't the premise of being able to request article be that they should appear on a certain day that somehow signifies that article? If Raul is complaining that he's getting too much spam on his page, then it's a problem with the system and that needs to be fixed by getting others involved in the process. A central page where users can leave requests and their opinions is key for both ends of the request process, so that no one person is singled out for any problems that may arise. I think we're trying too hard to make a cursory fix to a major underlying problem. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree we should have a featured article for a date based on a themed occasion, but that's up to Raul. The problem is when users "demand" a specific date from Raul, and are ignorant to the fact that their FA article is one of thousands. I've also seen many users request dates only because its their birthday, which I believe is highly inappropriate. I think "requesting dates" should be banned, although "suggesting" a day on a specific theme can be made with the nomination, however it cannot be binding to Raul's decision in any form. Raul has stated his procedures in selecting FAs to the main page, especially avoiding repeating themes in consecutive days. Requests or suggestions should help, not hamper this procedures. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(]|]|])</small></sup></span> 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think Raul is being too limited in his options for fixing this "problem" (again, not sure what this problem is). Eliminating date requests is a good idea if they are largely ignored (and that seems to be the case, given the volume of complaints Raul has recently been getting). However, I would caution against making changes (such as doing away with this page altogether) simply for the sake of stifling objections to the process. If the job of FA director really were making Raul ], I'd expect him to be more open to letting the many willing people help alleviate the pressure. As an aside to Jared, to ask a person in power "Do you at all at any point feel that you are being given too much power?" is rather... uh... odd; of course Raul was not going to say "no". If you were to ask me though... -- ''']''' 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Whilst agreeing with having 'themed' TFAs, I think ] has hit the nail on the head. People seem to think it's necessary to nominate ''any'' article for a specific date. The rationales for having a particular article on a certain date are usually reasonable, if not a little tenuous, but in many cases it just doesn't seem obvious or necessary to make that suggestion. On the other hand, bear in mind also that some articles are pushed to featured status with an eye to getting on the main page on a particular date - I know that happened with ], which was TFA on the day the tournament started. | |||
| :I don't believe that removing this page altogether will help Raul out - if anything, I would expect the requests just to pop up again elsewhere. This page also makes the whole TFA process look a lot less like a one-man job (which judging by some of the comments, some people are unhappy with). Instead, reform is necessary. The bottom line is that requesting dates adds another variable into the already complex task of balancing the sequence of TFAs. It seems to me therefore that the best way to cut this out is to outlaw asking for dates on this page, and make it clear that taking it to Raul's talk page is also unacceptable. →] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I support the before idea, but if dates are kept, I think many people don't realize that there is another year their article could be picked for, or they could change the date they want. Since Raul seems to be sick of people being angry that their article isn't picked on the day they wanted, maybe we could add to the black obnoxious header something like "Please don't complain to Raul. You get what you get." or "Please don't put a date unless it is absolutely necessary."--] (]) 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So if a person cannot request dates, then this page is pretty much moot because eventually almost all articles will become TFA'd anyway. Not being able to talk to Raul about it as well ensures that there is absolutely 0 input from the community. Thus, this would make the process more of a one-person job, which would be fine, but we're talking about an important part of day-to-day Misplaced Pages activities. I think a rethinking of this whole process is in order, and I'm glad we're hashing this out here now. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:41, 27 December 2024
Shortcut See also: the 2008 Signpost article (updated 2016) "Choosing Today's Featured Article", the editnotice for TFAs, and the blurbs that can be used in the event of a TFA emergency
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 35 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
| Shortcuts The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from February 20 to March 22. 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. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
Categories
Literally every month without fail, at some point during the month a run of Special:WantedCategories suddenly throws up a redlinked category of the "Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from " variety (e.g. Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from July 2024) which I end up having to create on your behalf, even though I'm not normally involved in this project, because of the rule around not leaving stuff in redlinked categories. So if such categories are routinely expected to exist, then would it be possible for this project to take steps to ensure that they get created either by a project member as soon as they're needed, or automatically by a bot at the beginning of the month, before they turn into work for other projects to clean up? Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I've been a coordinator for seven years and I have no idea what this is. At a guess, I'd say it's something produced by the template when TFA/R nominations are created. Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Bearcat and Wehwalt: these categories are a direct effect of a TFAR being accepted and scheduled. See for example Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024 where all of the five TFAs were placed in the monthly category by edits like this, made either by Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) or by SchroCat (talk · contribs), who used
{{subst:TFAR top|monthyear=October 2024|passed=y|date=November 28, 2024}}(or something similar). So I think that it's up to these people to notice the redlink that may appear in the category box following an edit like that, and to create the category page to suit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- Sure, except they very routinely don't, because it always, every month without fail, gets picked up by the WantedCategories report and thus always, every month without fail, ends up becoming my job. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the two obvious questions I have are, is it worth having categories like this, and in either case, what's the most efficient course of action? Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Having read the discussion to this point three times I have no idea what it is about, what if anything I am doing wrong, or how if at all I need to amend my practices. Would it be possible for someone to talk it through a level or two down? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: OK. When SchroCat made this edit on 3 October 2024 (and I'm sure that it was a correct action), it put Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Wells Cathedral 1 into Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024, but the category page didn't exist at the time - Bearcat had to create it themselves the following day after being alerted by the presence of that cat in Special:WantedCategories. It's something that they have been going on about at VPT and other places for months, if not years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see, I think. Is there a way to automate the creation so we are sure not to cause you any further problems? Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Or, alternatively, to alter the code so that this is no longer created? Because I suspect it gets next to no page views. As you saw by my initial reaction, it's not something useful in TFA land.Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Is there a point to Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024? I'm new to scheduling and it's already an involved multi-step process, so not adding yet another step would be the better pathway. - SchroCat (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC) - SchroCat (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The categorisation was added to Template:TFAR top by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), the template's creator. Why it was done, or if it is necessary, I don't know; but Bencherlite is WP:MIA so can't be asked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- They don't look terribly high traffic or useful - to me at least. There's also nothing in the archives of this page or of Bench's talk page where there was a discussion that led to it. It seems superfluous to requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Simply remove the code that produces this and no more problem, and we don't get talked about on VPT, wherever that is, and elsewhere. Can we agree to do this? Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- VPT = WP:VPT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Simply remove the code that produces this and no more problem, and we don't get talked about on VPT, wherever that is, and elsewhere. Can we agree to do this? Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- They don't look terribly high traffic or useful - to me at least. There's also nothing in the archives of this page or of Bench's talk page where there was a discussion that led to it. It seems superfluous to requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The categorisation was added to Template:TFAR top by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), the template's creator. Why it was done, or if it is necessary, I don't know; but Bencherlite is WP:MIA so can't be asked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see, I think. Is there a way to automate the creation so we are sure not to cause you any further problems? Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: OK. When SchroCat made this edit on 3 October 2024 (and I'm sure that it was a correct action), it put Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Wells Cathedral 1 into Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024, but the category page didn't exist at the time - Bearcat had to create it themselves the following day after being alerted by the presence of that cat in Special:WantedCategories. It's something that they have been going on about at VPT and other places for months, if not years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Having read the discussion to this point three times I have no idea what it is about, what if anything I am doing wrong, or how if at all I need to amend my practices. Would it be possible for someone to talk it through a level or two down? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the two obvious questions I have are, is it worth having categories like this, and in either case, what's the most efficient course of action? Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, except they very routinely don't, because it always, every month without fail, gets picked up by the WantedCategories report and thus always, every month without fail, ends up becoming my job. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bearcat and Wehwalt: these categories are a direct effect of a TFAR being accepted and scheduled. See for example Category:Misplaced Pages Today's featured article nominations from October 2024 where all of the five TFAs were placed in the monthly category by edits like this, made either by Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) or by SchroCat (talk · contribs), who used
December nominations
As scheduling coordinator for December, I announce that nominations for any date through 31 December may now be made. Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The December schedule will be found here. Nominations are still welcome and we'll adjust as need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Old Dinosaur FAs
In the WP:WikiProject Paleontology, we recently started an initiative to collaboratively rework old dinosaur FAs (here). The first one, Thescelosaurus, is finished now, and it just underwent an extensive, FA-level nitpick review (all within the WikiProject). However, the article now has very little in common with the version that became FA back in 2007 (these dinosaur articles become outdated incredibly quickly). Should we just nominate the article here again (the old version has been TFA in 2013), or do you suggest that we take any additional steps beforehand? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)