Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 14 August 2012

• WT:TFAR

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Rationale for 5-article limit? Proposal to increase to 10

What is the rationale for the 5-article limit? I surmise from the wording at the top of the TFAR page that, a few years ago, there were a large number of nominations, and it was an overwhelming job to manage them. (From 2008: "As the number of featured articles has increased, the competition for a slot on the Main Page has also increased. As of August 2008, more than 975 featured articles are still waiting to appear on the Main Page—more than a third of them for longer than a year.") So a limit of 5 made the job manageable, perhaps? But doesn't that lead to a situation where, say, tomorrow has no article listed because the five top scorers are 2 weeks away? I know the Pending list can identify near-term low point articles, but there is no blurb available. So there could easily arise a situation like:

• Sept 1 - 2 points, no blurb, not in main list
• Sept 12 - 5 points
• Sept 13 - 5 points
• Sept 14 - 5 points
• Sept 15 - 5 points
• Sept 16 - 5 points

And when Sept 1 arrives, that article should be considered, but there is no blurb for it. The limit of 5 doesn't seem to serve a purpose any longer, and even has some downsides. My recommendation would be to keep the window at 30 days lead time, but increase the limit of the main blurb list from 5 to about 20. (BTW: I ask this out of curiosity - the limit of five is not impacting me personally; but it may be confusing to other editors as well). --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about this too, it appears that this has lead to it being very easy to nominate for non-specific dates, because these are just used as quick filler for the many upcoming days with no date-relevant articles nominated for them. Which is a shame. I think the limit could easily be put to ten, and we'd get more date-relevant, instead of random, articles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone asked a similar question a few weeks ago and the answer is the same. Nobody who remembers the free-for-all into which this page degenerated, has any desire to go back. There are few FA writers who actually want their articles on the main page, and those that do generally find no problems with the current system (or with just pinging Raul on his talkpage if they don't want to go through this bureaucracy). I can't imagine Raul will take a step which will make his job significantly harder, and be of no obvious benefit to anyone other than the drive-by nominators who seem to see it as a badge of honour to rack up nominations here. 188.28.63.195 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if multiple editors nominating for TFAR are bringing up this confusing situation (including me), is that not reason to at least consider the pros and cons of improving the process? That prior Talk page you mention had virtually no discussion of the question, and did not reach any conclusion. We all have limited time to devote to volunteering on WP, and it behooves us to make the proceses as simple and friendly as possible. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, Raul may be the de facto director for the foreseeable future, but the TFA process is still a community one... If the community feels the process needs some changes (and as this is raised every month, I think they do), then start discussing them, instead of discussing whether to discuss them! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I hereby propose to increase the number of date-specific articles in the TFAR list from five to ten. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ping. Any objections to increasing to 10? --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Be bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I increased the 5 to 10 per the above rationale. I don't see any downsides, but if anyone objects, let's continue the conversation. --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through the links to the old system and I agree that it was a mess, mainly because there was no effort to group noms by date, only by subject. I see no real problem with extending the current system to 10 noms at a time so we can avoid pointless bottlenecks like happened with my nom of USS New Ironsides where I was late in submitting it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just move the Olmec heads to the next open date. The ship obviously gets the 21st. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

August 11

Is the postponed South Side, Chicago still penciled in for August 11?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. See Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/August 2012. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I mean. It was scheduled about two months ago and I requested that Raul654 (talk · contribs) postpone it to August 11 (the date of the Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic). He unscheduled it for that purpose. I am asking do I need to officially make it a non-specific date request for that date. It is ineligible for a date-specific request for that date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I get some guidance here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time of writing, there are only two nominations overleaf for specific dates, neither of which is for August 11. Nominate the article and mention the history. Bencherlite 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, this is not date relevant for August 11.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So what? You can still nominate it for a specific date even if you can't claim a date relevance point. That has always been the case on TFAR. Bencherlite 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I think you should just leave a message on Raul's talk page reminding him that the article was previously scheduled for the main page but then delayed when you asked for it to run on August 11. As I've explained a little further down on this page, by my interpretation of the nominating rules you can't nominate it on this page right now since the page is full and it doesn't have more points than another nomination. However, I think if you just remind Raul about your request to delay it to August 11, he would probably schedule it without it needing to be requested here. Calathan (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the August 11 2pt nomination was made before the August 3 2pt nomination. We can't set a policy were people can bump other articles by claiming the wrong number of points and then saying they are already on the page once the points are reduced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What I would suggest under such circumstances is to put a note either on that date's TFA page, or on that talk page, reminding the director or delegate of what was said, and providing a diff if relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Note that the August 11 2pt nomination was made before the August 3 2pt nomination." For future reference, if anyone cares, that's not right; TtT's nomination was the 6th on the page (at a time when only 5 were allowed). Bencherlite 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request precedence

This is the first time that I have been involved in this process, so I don't want to cause trouble by making unnecessary edits to the request page, but I am not sure why my nomination of 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix has been superseded by South Side, Chicago, as both articles are credited with the same number of points, but my request is for an earlier date, so does it have priority? Or does that only apply when choosing between articles to replace with one's own request? If I were to unhide my request and re-hide the South Side request, what would happen? Thanks,--Midgrid(talk) 14:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can replace a nomination with another nomination with the same number of points, unless the nomination you are replacing has at least 5 votes and at least 50% opposes. Your nomination should still be on the page. I think this situation was partially caused by you placing your nomination in the wrong place (it should be at the top of the "date requests" section, not at the bottom). However, even if your request were actually for a later date than South Side, Chicago, I don't think South Side, Chicago could replace it. The rules say "If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours . . .". While the first note on which article to replace (about requests with 50% opposes) says to ignore points, the third note (the one involving earlier and later requested dates) doesn't say anything about that. So you should only be applying the instructions in the third note after you have determined that the article you are nominating has more points than at least one of the nominations that are already present. Basically, those appear to me to be instructions on which nomination to replace when your nomination has more points than multiple other nominations, and do not allow nominations to be replaced by other nominations with the same number of points. So I think South Side, Chicago shouldn't have been nominated at all, as it didn't have more points than any of the other nominations already on the page. Calathan (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Calathan - South Side cannot be nominated unless it has more points than an article it is replacing, or an article has sufficient opposes to make it removable, as stated in the instructions. The instructions do not allow for unopposed articles to be remove by articles with the same number of points. However, as the grand prix article is nominated for August 3 it will either be selected or fall off the page very soon, and then Tony can continue with the nomination of the South Side article. I will now unhide the grand prix nomination and move it to the top of the page, and rehide the South Side blurb. Bencherlite 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the 2pt August 11 nomination was made before the 2pt August 3 nomination. Do we want to set a policy where people can bump other articles by "accidentally" claiming the wrong number of points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I am a bit confused on when the August 3 article was nominated. It appeared that there were only 4 nominations when I nominated my article. Something may have been wrong with the formattign of the page however. Was August 3 nominated without proper page formatting before my article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I submitted my nomination about eight hours before you, but, as has been pointed out above, I submitted it at the bottom of the page by mistake, instead of the top. Sorry if this caused any confusion.--Midgrid(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This diff is the grand prix being added; you can see from it that it's the fifth date request present. This diff shows you adding South Side, bringing the total to six date requests. The times on each diff also show the prix being first. The prix hadn't been added to the summary table yet, which may be the source of your confusion, but the request and blurb were already present. GRAPPLE X 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

USS New Ironsides has more points than both, but since it just became eligible, and there's no other article for its date, I'll hold off formally nominating it until some of these earlier dates have been taken care of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My request was not successful, so I have removed it and unhidden the South Side nomination.--Midgrid(talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the reason I didn't use this nomination is that we had a sports figure recently, and I'm planning to do an Olympics-related one in the near future; and we have another one requested for August 8 (which will probably not be granted either). Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationale; it's perfectly understandable! I'll set my alarm for next August... ;) --Midgrid(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Timing

There's a continuing issue with late notices to the principal editors of TFAs as articles are not being chosen until the last moment. This has been addressed with the FA director multiple times, nevertheless, it's still the situation. I would suggest that the community consider recommending to Raul the appointment of a second TFA delegate, with the instruction to make selections (unless Raul or Dabomb has) seven days in advance. Possibly the community could also consider recommending a specific person, though I firmly rule myself out for the appointment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a job for Malleus. I'll let him know. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."

  Gonna point Brian at this ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Since apparently the lesson didn't sink in from the last time you tried this stunt -- you (Wehwalt and Br'er Rabbit) are not the featured article director. You do not get to make or solicit such appointments. Raul654 (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you think about it this way: If Brian is appointed, the work will get done, and Br'er and I have already committed to supporting him. Thus, you put yourself in a position where editors are no longer grumbling about last minute notifications, and those you list as your opposition have already committed to supporting Brian as your appointee. It sounds like a win-win to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize there is a problem with late scheduling. That is my problem and I am taking steps to remedy it.

Where you are concerned, however -- you've already done enough damage to the process, what with your hijacking of the RFC and with your roles in hounding Sandy off of Misplaced Pages, not to mention your current attempt. So thank you for your suggestions. You can count on me to give them the full weight they deserve. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you've won then Raul, time to raise the flag? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

noms...

Question(s): I've never been much of a star or green circle collector (for reasons I'll not go into here), so excuse me if I'm a fish out of water here. What are the proper protocols (and common courtesies) of asking for a TFA? I noticed Amazing Grace the other day was a FA, but had never been featured on TFA. (although at least 1 other FA has been featured more than once). I didn't create the article. I didn't expand it. I didn't put it up for FAC. And I don't know what the "points" are all about. Any assistance is appreciated. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The principal author had previously requested that that article not be TFA. She's not currently active, so it's up to you whether you want to respect that request - just putting it out there. If you decide you do want to go ahead, you could either look for a relevant date, or stick it in one of the two non-specific date slots (both of which are currently empty). For a non-specific slot, it would probably have about 6 points. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to disrespect anyone .... request withdrawn ... — Ched :  ?  03:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit sad to see that, because Amazing Grace would we a good statement between all the battles ;) Perhaps contact the principal author? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm really curious to know the backstory for why the primary author wants Amazing Grace excluded from TFA. -- tariqabjotu 11:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

She's retired, and I won't even pretend to be sorry about that one. Sorry, but Moni3 caused me considerable distress with her attacks on me in January.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look up who the editor was, but wouldn't amazing grace provide the best healing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Moni3? ... sigh. Yes, I'm familiar with her. — Ched :  ?  12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. Raul654 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get that. (I got Hammer. Nail. Door.) - I am dealing with Franz Kafka, we have his writing only because his friend ignored his wish to destroy his manuscripts. I can imagine that the "community" would profit from "amazing grace" on the Main page, - then why respect a single author's wish, regardless of who this author is, - no ownership of articles, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

He's saying I'm just as bad as Moni. Here is the relevant article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep digging ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Moni's stated reason for not wanting Amazing Grace as TFA was "I don't have the time to watch it while the article is on the main page". Since she's now retired, it makes no sense to keep Amazing Grace off the main page. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)