Misplaced Pages

Per the below discussion, I've deleted both of these templates. They are more talk page clutter, and they contribute to the ongoing problem of excessive or pointless date requesting. Raul654 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Help...?

When I try to split the suggested intro for medieval cuisine 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...?

Peter 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem with my intro for Aaron Sorkin, that is on the page one tab over. It seems to work for some intros to articles, but not others.-BillDeanCarter 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Try putting the closing </div> tags on a new line, separated from the text body.

Worked like a dandy. Thanks.

Peter 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Route?

Can Ridge Route 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 demoted at the end of February and promoted a month later. --NE2 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already been on the main page, so I do not think it should go there again. Raul654 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Old FAs

I am curious about whether any articles have been designated as not suitable for Main page exposure. I went through 2003 FA Promotions and 2004 FA Promotions and added strike through tags to all WP:FFAs. Below are the remaining TFA eligible FAs with {{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 Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/amendment_proposal due to length.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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 ...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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" - Stochastic effects. 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. Raul654 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The algorythm I used was to look at 2003 FA Promotions and 2004 FA Promotions 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. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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, 2003 FA Promotions, 2004 FA Promotions and Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2005 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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 <s> tags. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, pages like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2005 are not really archives. They were created for and used by WP:WBFAN, and I've left a note at User:Rick Block. Gimmetrow 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not complete in the sense that I only checked FAs that have not been made TFAs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone suggested a list of old FAs some time ago (er, sometime in 2005 - see here) to appear on the main page - the most obvious ones from the old list still remaining are Order of the Thistle and Quatermass and the Pit, I think - but, as SandyGeorgia 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 John Bull (locomotive) or Matthew Brettingham or Reginald Maudling. But, for exampe, Parliament Acts had a recent User:Yomangani-fication, so should be fine. I am sure User:Filiocht'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. -- ALoan (Talk) 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. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will move it to the TFA/R proposal page since it is related to that topic. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Better, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

At the time I created the by-year lists (Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2003, 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 WP:WBFAN, which doesn't use the strikethrough as an indication of FFA vs. FA status (the script that creates the WBFAN list reads WP:FFA 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 WP:FFA. If anyone thinks this would be useful I'd be willing to do this (eventually).

Other than WP:FA and WP:FFA (and the by-year lists and WBFAN), is there anywhere else featured and former featured articles are tracked? -- Rick Block (talk) 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 Platypus, 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 :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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 - Worldtraveller has two for Hubble Space Telescope 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. -- Rick Block (talk) 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 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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 Misplaced Pages talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. -- Rick Block (talk) 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? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WBFAN

It is probably worth noting that WP:WBFAN allocates FAs to the person who successfully nominated an article at FAC, not the person who wrote it (for example, I did not "write" Simon Byrne, Buckingham Palace, 1755 Lisbon earthquake, League of Nations, Tony Blair, or John Vanbrugh). In any case, there many FAs don't have one single "primary" author. -- ALoan (Talk) 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added cross-checking to the script that generates the WBFAN list. Current anomalies are listed at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/anomalies. 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. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like case insensitivity would narrow that list. -Ravedave 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 Pumping lemma and Provinces of Thailand (see User talk:Raul654#An FA curiosity). Doing this I've updated Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2003 to indicate all the FFAs in strikethrough font. I'll do 2004-2007 in the next few days. -- Rick Block (talk) 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? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, this edit marking 48 articles as FFAs replaces the 2005 list with the output of the script. Everything in this list that's in WP:FFA is now marked in strikethrough font, and if it's not marked in strikethrough font it's in WP:FA. -- Rick Block (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/anomalies 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). -- Rick Block (talk) 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, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Representative peer and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Order of the Garter SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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. -- Rick Block (talk) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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 WP:LINK and not WP:REDIRECT (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. -- Rick Block (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/2004/List by date for 2005-2007 if anyone's interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work. I was wondering about human error. I noticed many FAs had wrong promotion dates in their {{ArticleHistory}} templates or omitted main page dates from the yearly lists. Does either of these types of errors cause you problems. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 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. Raul654 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). -- Rick Block (talk) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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 WP:FA and WP:FFA. "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 {{featured article}} 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 WP:OWN talk page updates any more than I do. Similarly, I don't own the by-year lists or WBFAN any more than you do. -- Rick Block (talk) 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, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. Gimmetrow 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and have removed the FAC entry. --Ragib 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 this for now. The histories on these request pages are scattered everywhere. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:20Z
  • 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:23Z
      • 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. --Ragib 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 WP:3RR is to prevent *any* edit warring; not to excuse three reverts without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:33Z
        • And you've now reverted three good faith edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Those reverts were in response to your deletions of my good faith suggestion on a discussion page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:34Z
          • 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:44Z
              • I think the problem is clear; if you can do it, so can 80 other FACs, and that creates an unmanageable task for Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:53Z
• As I was the one that noted the article's status, I apologize for any resulting confusion. By the way, Harry Potter, 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. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 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 Atheism though. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:54Z

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. Raul654 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:19Z

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:28Z
  • The need is so that others won't make the same mistake you made, leading to the potential for mistakes, as mentioned by Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I made a mistake? Where? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:41Z
      • 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. Gimmetrow 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? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:45Z
          • 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:53Z
          • Yes, that's more or less what I'm stating. Gimmetrow 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Can you link me to some evidence of this? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:04Z
          • 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.) Gimmetrow 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? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:34Z

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, Ruhrfisch 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 WT:TFA could be used for other purposes). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 19:03Z
  • 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, History of Michigan State University 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, Ruhrfisch 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 History of Michigan State University, 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:22Z
      • 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". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 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". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:51Z
      • 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 Harry Potter by giving the reason, it is not even an FAC, when your nom is not even an FA? Is it impossible for Harry Potter or for even a one-line stub to become today's featured article 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, - KNM 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note 4 reverts by User:Brian0918. Breaking 3RR is not a good practice. I've placed a 3RR note on his talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I only count 3. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:11Z

Here you go. Thanks. --Ragib 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:16Z

• • 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 WP:3RR in this case. - KNM 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should revisit WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F and read it. I assume as an admin, you had to learn the policies. By no means is your edit warring justifiable. Thanks. --Ragib 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 Atheism should be blocked because of how we constructively revert eachothers edits while suggesting new edits. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:20Z

You DID revert, not "slightly-modify", in the middle of the edit war. To re-interpret 3RR, visit the appropriate talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:27Z

Since you disagree about this, I suggest you raise this point at the 3RR report I filed about this. Thank you. --Ragib 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 WP:3RR? 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:42Z

Please raise the issue at the ANB/3RR, and at other places where WP:3RR policy discussions take place. Thank you. --Ragib 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! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:52Z

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 Atheism is finally Featured, I may decide to nominate it for December 25th instead, which of course is the 7th anniversary of the death of W.V. Quine, the great philosopher who forwarded several atheistic philosophies, and the 365th birthday of Isaac Newton. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:27Z

Could this page just be a list?

Given that Raul generally rewrites the intros, and often doesn't follow the suggested dates, the submission template for this page is largely shrubbery. 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 this and this. Gimmetrow 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• When has Raul not followed the suggestions for dates? Often? Can you link some diffs? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:32Z

Fine, I looked for edits by Raul to the page, and found a couple shrubberies for you:

• April 2 Raul selected Germany for April 7, had been requested for June 6-8.
• Feb 11, Raul selected 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? Gimmetrow 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:56Z

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. Raul654 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.--Clyde (talk) 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. 82.2.135.14 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this page is basically for Raul I'd say we chance it to whatever he wants. Buc 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. Buc 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.--Endroit 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. -- EnemyOfTheState

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? Ruhrfisch 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? Buc 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.--Endroit 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. Buc 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. Kmzundel 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 User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#Some_articles_get_there_faster_than_others Raul654 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Raul. Your thoughts have provided more understanding and reassurance. Kmzundel 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/tampering?

I dind't support this article but I notced when I commented on Bill Russell 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. Aaron Bowen 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.123.52 (talk • contribs)

This must be the person who deleted all the comments. Aaron Bowen 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. Marskell 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. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 14:03Z

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. Marskell 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. Raul654 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Date requests seem a bit redundant

A few months ago I noticed Eurovision Song Contest 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. Buc 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. Buc 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. Raul654 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 The KLF, 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? Gimmetrow 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. 86.27.115.144 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. Gimmetrow 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. 86.27.115.144 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. _└┘t  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. _└┘t  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. Raul654 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. Raul654 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. Cricket02 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. Epbr123 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. _└┘t  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. Gimmetrow 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Some years ago, I created Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article, 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. Raul654 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. Marskell 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." _└┘t  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. Gimmetrow 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? Raul654 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That settled, is two worth thinking about? Marskell 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. Raul654 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. Marskell 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. Epbr123 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 Birthday Committee), 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. Titoxd 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. _└┘t  20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(In reply to Jared's already rejected idea) No, for the same reasons already noted above. Raul654 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. Raul654 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to think of ways to fix this page, as removing it would mean that your orange bar of death would never turn off. Titoxd 03:03, 14 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. -- tariqabjotu 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. Raul654 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that what's best for wikipedia though? Epbr123 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A Thought: I just want to point out that under the guidance of (a few) people, Template talk:Did you know 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. David Fuchs 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. David Fuchs 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). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support shutting this page down. Buc 21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Tomorrow's featured article until it was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article and then Raul654 created 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, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 18, 2007 would contain the actual Main Page blurb, but suggestions could be made at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 18, 2007/requests. -- ALoan (Talk) 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? Marskell 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. Raul654 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. Raul654 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 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? Yomangani 00:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: some articles don't feel ready for the mainpage, and wait to request until they are; and some articles never request main page. The request page allows Raul to select those that have put themselves forward as ready. We just need to lose the date request option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 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? — Brian (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(To the comment above the one above.) But don't you think there should be some sort of theme to it all? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to have The Star-Spangled Banner appear on July 4 or Victory over Japan Day 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. _└┘t  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. - Mtmelendez 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 "very tired", 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... -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with having 'themed' TFAs, I think User:SandyGeorgia 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 Cricket World Cup, 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. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 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."--Clyde (talk) 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. _└┘t  00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jared here. I understand the need for variety in topics, etc, etc, but the volume of complaints (and Raul's increasing frustration) appear to stem from the decreasing fulfillment of the date requests even for dates when only one item is requested. Perhaps a better solution would be to accept more of the date requests, thereby giving the community more say in when articles make it onto the Main Page (and thereby decreasing the number of complaints on your talk page). -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer Jared, I don't think this page is useless without requesting dates, since I believe not all FA articles will reach the main page in their current status. Some articles may still need work in updating current information or fixing dead references, among other issues. This page should be a "whitelist" as was mentioned before, where users can suggest FA articles that have recently been reviewed and approved, whether formally or informally, by one user or by collaborations, as ready to be TFA'd. Otherwise, Raul's talk page would be inundated with requests, or he would have to comb through the featured content pages, review the article, make corrections where appropriate, etc. etc. - Mtmelendez 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the current requests, only two or three have clashing dates. Epbr123 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. And for some reason, the final straw for Raul was my question on his talk page asking why he didn't choose any of three items requested for May 16. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that 'requested date' is not the only factor in choosing TFA. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that; I was expecting Raul to reply with an explanation, not this. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another factor

Just to add another factor, the TFA-request template is a recent development (January?) which probably has the effect of advertising the TFA/R page, and encouraging people to request specific dates. Would sending that to TfD help? Gimmetrow 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That thing is just more talk page clutter !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

I think Raul does a thankless job well (thanks Raul). Part of what seems to be happening lately is that people see the date request option and try to find any possible connection to an upcoming date to get their article on the Main Page sooner rather than later. On March 31 (see above) I looked at requests and only 6 of 31 requests for specific dates actually mentioned the dates in the article lead paragraphs shown in their request. What if users could only request a date if that date were already mentioned in the lead paragraphs shown? This would eliminate most trivial date requests, while still allowing the appropriate ones (like Eurovison recently).

As long as you are changing the list, what if the requests page were revamped and a more detailed header were at the top that explained the process in detail. What if it said almost all featured articles will eventually be on the Main Page, and explains the rationale of spacing them out (geographic and topic diversity). There could be a link to the list of FAs that have not yet been on the Main Page and an explanation that about half the Main Page selections will come from these requests and the rest come from this list (this seems to be what happens, adjust the ratios if they are wrong). The explanation of a date request being in the lead paragraphs could be in the header, as well as a reminder that even a date request is no guarantee of being on the Main Page on that or any date.

Next the request list itself could be changed. If the suggested lead paragraphs help, keep them. If not, just a list of articles is OK. I do know some suggested lead paragraphs have been improved from comments based on the requests. Seeing the photos is also helpful. I think the chronological list is useful if for no other reason that it makes requesters realize you can wait a long time to get your request on the main page (History of Michigan State University, anyone?). Bottom line, since the decision rests with Raul, keep the parts of the list that help him (and if possible the process). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best that we not require that the requested date be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Even Eurovision Song Contest does not mention May 12 in the intro. And May 13's featured article was clearly meant to coincide with Mother's Day, although the date was not mentioned in the intro. People at this point in time are free to add date requests, but it's still not very overwhelming (except perhaps to Raul); few dates have multiple requests and those items that don't have a date attached are (presumably) assumed to mean "use this whenever you get the chance, whenever there exists no viable date-requested item". -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Um, May 13th's TFA (Baby Gender Mentor) was never requested here that I can see. I had missed Eurovision not mentioning the date, thanks. Perhaps the date requested could be metioned in the lead paragraphs or could tie in to a major, well-publicized event (like Eurovision or some major sporting events, but not "my birthday"). I do note that Minnesota (May 11) did mention the date in the lead. Ruhrfisch 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there need to be classifications of some sorts for TFA. There are "please, please, please, feature this tomorrow" requests that will likely be ignored, and there's the "Hey, I got this featured a year ago... mind putting it on the Main Page sometime?" requests that may or may not be useful. (I don't know if Raul finds them useful, so that's why I have the "may or may not" there.) Raul has mentioned resource starvation in reference to TFA previously, so there needs to be a place (ideally not Raul's talk page) where requests should be centralized... but at the same time, there need to be priority classifications to go along that page as well. Titoxd 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My point was more the current page does not do a very good job of informing requesters of the ins and outs of the process, so the more information at the top (I think) the better (in terms of letting people know that just because they ask for their birthday doesn't mean they will get it, etc.). Until fairly recently, it did not even say the articles had to be FA (not FAC, see the discussion above, which was only solved by Raul putting that info at the top of the page in bold print). Ruhrfisch 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul is right; reviewing his talk page shows that this date request thingie is spinning out of control. We should either eliminate it entirely, or put some strong wording at the top of the page to discourage specific dates. The idea that an article should be featured on some anniversary date is strange to me anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of control? In what way? What is so wrong about asking why date requests are ignored in lieu of articles with no date request attached? Sure, he's got a frequently asked questions page, but I (and I'm sure others) are seriously turned off by what appears to be Raul's "don't bother me" attitude. The idea that responding to a few talk page comments a week is tiring (but not to the point where one is willing to enlist help) is incomprehensible. -- tariqabjotu 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went and counted. Out of the 18 articles I've scheduled for this month, 13 of them (72%) were there by direct request (some were date-specific, some were not). The others (Scottish Parliament Building, Rhodes Blood libel, mars, Cell nucleus, 35 mm film) I put there to add variety. That is the purpose of the job, after all. So your implication - that I'm ignoring the requests - is transparently false and I'll thank you to stop repeating it. Raul654 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So your implication - that I'm ignoring the requests - is transparently false and I'll thank you to stop repeating it. No, it's not transparently false; in fact, it's transparently true. The reason you are getting so many comments on your talk page is that you ignore date requests. You suggested that I meant that you ignore date requests for no reason whatsoever, whereas I really meant you merely ignore date requests for some reason. That for some reason is what many of the people on your talk page want to find out. In fact, many of the comments on your talk page are not requests to change the queue at all (as has been implied many times here), but merely simple questions as to your rationale for choosing one article over the date-requested other (, , , , etc.) The people asking about TFA on your talk page have, for the most part, been polite. But instead of getting a similarly cordial explanation or response in return, many have been merely dismissed and directed to this post and ensuing discussion, which says we're "DRIVING CRAZY". Seriously, Raul, it's insulting. And I am especially insulted, because I apparently am the one who drove you over the brink. Could you imagine if I responded to a manageable nine threads in eight days like that? -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason you are getting so many comments on your talk page is that you ignore date requests. - False. The reason I am getting so many requests is, and Sandy has already stated, that people have started to believe that they are entitled to a particular date. The reason they have begun to think this is because of the existence of this page.

You suggested that I meant that you ignore date requests for no reason whatsoever, whereas I really meant you merely ignore date requests for some reason. - No, actually I said you are wrong for saying I ignore date requests, which by your own admission, is what you were doing. And again, your claims are obviously false. (1) If I schedule requested article X, and then someone else shows up and asks why I picked X instead of requested article Y, that doesn't mean I've ignored Y - it means I've chosen a different request. Looking at my talk page, this applies to the following threads: Gilberto Silva, Indian historical articles, Japan, for "Today's featured article", threads. There is a HUGE backlog of dateless requests, after all. I'm not going to give absolute priority to dated ones, or everyone will simply start requested dates, and which will only magnify the problem. (2) And if someone goes there to ask if I'm going to schedule article Z for some future yet-unselected date, that doesn't mean I've ignored the request. (threads: Mother's Day (May 13) Main page, Eurovision Song, Ellis Paul, Ohio Wesleyan). (3) If someone goes there to complain that an article has been sitting in the queue a long time (Everton F.C. thread), that doesn't mean I've ignored the request - some of them *have* to sit in the queue a long time. That's the nature of a quueue. Nor has there ever been a guarentee that requests will be serviced in order. While I do make an effort to service them in order, that is not a guarantee. In short, you are saying I'm ignoring broad categories of requests when it is plainly obvious that this is not the case. Raul654 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way? There are many other factors at play in choosing the main page article; these requests are turning into entitled assumptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that these date requests are generally of low value to the encyclopedia, and distract from the main issue of keeping the main page content fresh and diverse. For instance, three star wars movies are currently requested for mid-May dates. But we last featured a star wars movie in February; these requests are in contradiction of our desire to keep the main page fresh and diverse. And they are of very little value, since the date being commemorated (e.g., the release date of SW: Attack of the Clones) is not one that anybody is aware of or cares about. Following themes sometimes makes sense, like an American independence figure on July 4th, but it rarely adds anything to our product. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal

Nothing invested in this; feel free to rip it up, but hopefully this idea will kill all the following birds with one stone.

Problems/issues:

1. The average number of new featured articles promoted during November – April was 60 per month. Thus, we are promoting twice as many articles as we can feature on the main page. (This does not account for delistings at WP:FAR; many of them have already been on the main page anyway.)
2. A higher rate of promotion is desirable; anything we can do to encourage promotions is A Good Thing.
3. Featured articles are not proportional by topic; some WikiProjects and areas are relatively stronger or weaker than others, resulting in under or over-representation of some topic areas. Yet, Raul can't feature exclusively hurricanes, battles, and rugby players on the main page — variety is a goal.
4. Main page date requests are making it hard to schedule the main page, considering all the other factors that must be considered.

It might be helpful to have a mechanism to feature more than one article on the main page, while encouraging more featured articles, solving the date request dilemma, and allowing for variety in Today's featured article.

My idea is that we run two sections:

• Today's featured article would continue as it was in the past, subject to Raul attempting to schedule it for variety across topics, without the possibility of date requests. Articles which sign up for that queue do not request a specific date, and they take what they get.
• We run a separate Featured event section, which allows a second vehicle for getting more articles on the main page, will hopefully encourage more promotions, and will address the date issue. This is different than the Anniversary section, in that it would include only featured content. It would be subject to the following:

1. An article only goes in one queue. If you're in the Featured event cue, you're not also in the queue for Today's featured article. If you don't get your date, then you move to the Today's featured article queue, or choose another date, but no listing in both queues.
2. If there aren't enough featured events allowing for a new article each day, some events can run longer than a day (for example, World Cup Soccer, things like that, which are not one-day events). This section need not change daily, as the daily featured article will already be providing the main page variety.
3. If the system works, after a few months, featured lists or topics could also be considered for the Featured Event section.
4. Talk page consensus can be used to remove, as always, inappropriate or pointy nominations (this issue came to light when its main editor suggested that he planned to request Christmas Day for atheism; we shouldn't be making political, religious or other statements via main page selection dates).
5. If Raul has too many or too few in either section, he's free to ignore requests and use what he needs, to promote main page diversity.

I suspect if we carved out this kind of space for two featured articles, and made it clear that 1) ToFA requests do NOT include dates, and 2) it's still up to Raul - you get what you get - we could solve many problems at once. This might lessen the issues coming up on Raul's talk page, and free his time up to be able to schedule two articles per day (or less, as some featured events might run longer than a day), while providing additional motivation for writing featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this idea, but would feel better if I could see a mockup of the Main Page that incorporated this suggestion. You probably also want to spell out what are and are not valid date associations (even as guidelines) to avoid the "it's my birthday" argument. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to put more work into the preliminary idea, unless Raul thinks it's feasible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but it's based on the premise that we can get more real estate on the main page. I don't think this is likely for two reasons - the main page is already pretty full, and getting people to accept a new section (which would, at least on its face, seem to conflict with selected anniversaries) is unlikely. Raul654 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering if we split our current "real estate" into two, by shortening our main page summaries? Just an idea — I still have nothing vested in it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of splitting the real estate, why not split the time? In other words, why not have Featured articles be up for 12 hours instead of 24? Obviously the name would have to be changed from "Today's featured article" (or would it?). 8 hours or so works for DYK, but I wouldn't want less than 12 hours and more than 12 would be awkward. I don't know how much more work it would be though for Raul, and I agree he does a good job and do not want to make things harder for him. Ruhrfisch 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would fly; someone would get short shift (night time hours), and less than 24 hours isn't enough time for the kind of changes that an article goes through on the main page. We'd be scrambling every 12 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking this through

If Raul thinks the current system's not working, then we need to take that extremely seriously. Here are my thoughts on five different systems:

1. Clearly, any system which revolves around a request mechanism will lead to "why this not that" type messages cropping up on Raul's talk page. I think therefore that we cannot perpetuate a request-based system.
2. Vote (or !vote) based systems are inappropriate because (to cite just one reason) we would see the most "popular" topics over-represented, which is not what today's featured article is about.
3. A purely automated system will not work because (to cite just one reason) we could end up with (say) four articles in a row about medical science.

For those reasons, I think that there are only two possible systems that will work

a) Utter autocracy - Raul decides and that's that. No canvassing or solicitation for articles.

b) A TFA cabal, headed by Raul to help spread the load/expertise (and that way one or more member may be happy to be a conduit for requests)

As an aside, whichever road we go down, I have a simple suggestion. A "commented out" note at the very top of each FA article with a few suggested appropriate dates.

Final comment: I'm happy for Raul to select whatever route he likes and he has my absolute support... and thanks. He does a great job, for which he cops an unreasonable amount of flak. --Dweller 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)