Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 17 October 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.

Do we need points any more?

The page is now running at 5 non-specific date slots and 10 specific date slots. As such, there is now less need for competition between articles in terms of jostling for position on the nomination page, and the point score is much less relevant than it used to be. In the past, you needed to know the points accurately because points determined whether articles would be bumped off before selection. Now there are many more slots, that's not an issue. I'm not sure the points calculation still has a use. If an article is an old FA, on an important topic that TFA hasn't run for a while, why not just put that in the nomination, and explain why the date is a good one (if appropriate)? If people like the article and the reasons for nominating, they can support it; if not, they can ignore or oppose it, or express a preference for a competing article or for the article to run on another date. The instructions would get much simpler, and people wouldn't need to spend time working out whether a particular article is "underrepresented" or so similar to a recent FA that it gets a points penalty or trying to find a date relevance point. Thoughts? Bencherlite 09:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar thoughts: I think the point math can be replaced by discussions among reasonable people who want to improve the quality of articles and are interested in showing a variety of topics on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to this. Also, the 5 non-specific slots are usually full. We should increase to 10, just like specific. PumpkinSky talk 10:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support that also. 10 non-specific slots should provide enough variety of topics to easily schedule a week in advance, which I think is the minimum - two weeks seem better to really bring articles in shape, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems a little premature to discuss increasing the number of non-specific slots again, less than a month after the last discussion (where you were both happy with 5 slots). There's been no real chance to see how things are going. After all, it's only been five days since the fifth slot was filled for the first time, so it's a bit too soon to be able to say "the 5 non-specific slots are usually full"... Anyway, that's a different discussion to this one, so it might be better to start your own proposal rather than get it mixed up here. Bencherlite 10:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's far easier to find a non-spef candidate than a specific one. I alone have enough non-spef on my list to keep that filled for a couple months, plus there's what other people what to nom in the non-specific slots.PumpkinSky talk 16:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I too have a non-specific nomination waiting in the wings, so would appreciate more slots. -- Dianna (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We would not need more slots, of course, if scheduling would clear them. If nothing happens until tomorrow I will be bold and schedule the stork, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer Bencherlite's question, I have some thoughts about this in terms of the diffusion and the point system, but want to think it through a bit more. I've only made a single request here but found I had no points; the article seemed important to run and I'd written it for a specific anniversary; but I've been a bit befuddled about how the points work (and btw I think that Bencherlite helped that time by creating a version in Welsh, so a belated thanks for that). Anyway, I'm thinking that some slicing and dicing is in order to keep from getting too many requests in the same areas and maybe points can be used in that regard, but not sure how to go about doing it. All I know is that currently we have, I think, six requests for US topics, three requests for music, three to do with a fairly close geographical area in the US (that's quite frankly fairly unpopulated), and so on. So I think we need to look at better diffusion and if we do keep points that might be the way to go. But no specific proposal to put forward after this lengthy post. The points are worth discussing though. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you consider that the supply of TFAs ready is limited? It has many more battleships and hurricanes than biographies of African scientists and Chinese cities, - we can only distribute what we have, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to get at I think. That's why I think maybe the point system could be reworked in terms of diffusion, but am tired and just in from work and still working out in my mind how we could do something like that or if it's even feasible. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Limited the supply may be, but only up to a point - 1,317 articles to choose from, or over 3.5 years' worth (assuming all are fit for the main page) leaving aside the ones being promoted each week at FAC (more than are demoted at FAR). I think Truthkeeper88 hits the nail on the head - whatever system there is needs to make sure that the TFA sequence shows the range, depth and quality of the FAs. Points seem a rather crude metric, particularly when there are so many slots that points don't act as a constraint on nominations. If people take an overview of the nominations and say "yes to this but no to that because they're too similar in theme" then whoever is selecting the articles can take into account views and suggestions and judge the consensus, such that it is, that emerges from the discussion as part of looking to the bigger picture. I'm glad it's not me picking the articles, anyway! And yes I remember the absurdity of a system that in part depended on me writing a two-line stub in Welsh about a novel so that 20 rather than 19 other-language Wikipedias covered the topic to ensure that a nomination of Truthkeeper's gained the extra point needed to stop it being bumped off the page. Discussion should be about the merits of the nominations not about the technicalities of point-scoring. That's my point, as it were, in a nutshell. Bencherlite 22:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ensuring diversity is or was ensured by keeping the number of articles coming from here relatively limited, so that the pickers could also pick plenty from the full range available - though as pointed out this is a very skewed population. This is another aspect of the delicate ecology that will I hope survive the recent changes. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's the unspecified that are throwing it off - and I'm not clear what "unspecified" means. A week from now? A month? A year? If we look only at the specified we have two biographies (one male US baseball player; one female UK aristocrat); two to do with music (a French opera; an American musical); a horse; a river; an Antarctic expedition. I suppose of those the only one I'd question is the Antarctic expedition because let's be frank, there weren't many in the early 20th century, and most have been run with Ernest Shackleton going in March. So stripping out the non-specifics in fact seems to balance it a bit more. Don't know where that gets us on Bencherlite's original question re points. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This system has its issues, but the one it replaced was worse. I think getting rid of the points is worth considering.PumpkinSky talk 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think there's now a problem here. Not enough thought is being given to the diversity of the pages being proposed. If it continues in this vein, then I think maybe it might be worth exploring whether to assign points based on some kind of weight in the categories of on this page. But some of the categories are extremely heavily populated whereas others, such as Mathematics for instance, very lightly populated. Ideally the thing to do (and I think this might be a big job and quite frankly not worth doing), is to slice and dice the categories even more: depopulate some of the heavy ones by reorganizing and dividing, and so on.
• Furthermore, let's be honest about what's going on. We have a void because neither Raul nor Dabomb have been editing much. I've never interacted with either of those editors and couldn't care less about the egos involved, but on some level when we lose editors like that we lose institutional memory that's worth keeping. Has anyone tried to approach the Raul or Dabomb and ask what's going on with them (besides the obvious)? Has anyone tried asking Raul how he's been making these decisions, does he have a system? Is the system really broken or have there simply been a few hitches lately. Finally, I really hate seeing what happened yesterday with Pilgrim at Tinker Creek – I see posts demanding scheduling so that writers can clean up the pages and yet the writers aren't being notified and furthermore in that particular case have to undergo two days of nastiness and accusations. This is hypocrisy at it's worst. I think we can do better. I'm unwatching here now because I'm disappointed at some of the behavior I've seen. Sorry if I'm coming across as pedantic or whatever, but there you go. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's important to recognize that many possible TFAs aren't being nominated because the primary editor(s) have fallen away from Wiki, don't want the hassle of cleaning them up or simply don't care. We have the current distribution of noms, for good or bad, because their primary editors care enough to nominate them. If diversity is really an issue, and I'm not sure if it is or not, then let's go looking through the rest of the FAs for more diverse subjects and give them any needed TLC before the actual nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've kinda done that at Misplaced Pages:QAI#TFAR_candidates. But now we're getting opposes because "Article A is in Locale A and was TFA three months ago and now Article B is at TFAR and it's 1000 miles from Locale A so it can't be TFA"....when the topics are totally different. PumpkinSky talk 23:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes "you" (!) are, and I suggest you stop whining about it every 5 minutes. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Truthkeeper88 has a point if the categories on this page are what is meant by "diversity".

• Art, architecture and archaeology - 4 left that have not on been on the main page
• Art, architecture and archeology biographies - 3 left
• Biology - 62 left
• Animals - 118 left
• Biology biographies - 0 left
• Business, economics and finance - 17 left (13 of them on coins)
• Chemistry and mineralogy - 0 left
• Computing - 0 left
• Culture and society - 9 left
• Education - 4 left
• Engineering and technology - 0 left
• Food and drink - 1 left (Lettuce)
• Geography and places - about 60 or so left - (lost count)
• Geology and geophysics - 0 left
• Health and medicine - 1 left
• History - 28 left
• History biographies - 30 left
• Language and linguistics - 0 left
• Law - 6 left
• Law biographies - 3 left

etc. Is this what is meant by diversity? Inquiring minds want to know. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. Just in case anyone is not clear, this is by no means the full list, totalling 1318 or something, and excludes the big categories which are mainly "popular culture" - we are in no danger of running out of tv shows, hurricanes or pop songs. It might be helpful to the pickers if more of these were nominated here. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. But I also think either to avoid or to underscore PumpkinSky's comment above, that some of the overpopulated categories can maybe be split. Anyway, I'll be busy for the next some days, so will be leaving this discussion. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Diversity is not equal to being in the same "box", I would think, Osiris myth is different enough from a modern preacher, both would be in Religion. I understand the boxes as a help to find something, no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the discussion of points, I think they may be handy to break a tie between two equally good articles vying for the same date, but they should not be used as a shield to keep worthy articles off the main page. As for diversity, my take is that what I see at a casual glance at the main page is pretty diverse on at least a monthly basis, "diversity" is really more about what's in the pool and what gets nominated; if someone wants more articles at TFA that are about Africa, for example, then get 'em to FA and nominate them; I don't see anything getting rejected for being TOO diverse -- I think that argument is a solution in search of a problem. Montanabw 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That mistakes the issue; the pool is not very diverse at all, but the main pages are, as a result of efforts including this page. Though we have not had heaps of road, tv or milhist noms recently, and are giving sport a bit of a rest after the Olympics, if people see the rules have been relaxed, eventually you risk loads of such noms, and some people seem determined to remove the rules that have successfully thwarted this in the past, and kept a balanced main page diet. We may indeed be in danger of running out of most more traditional encyclopedic topics, and have not had options in many areas for a long time (see above). Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the ones near "zero" have remained there with minor variation simply because the selector grabs them when they become available. We are not selecting every day, there is much room for Dabomb to "fill in the blanks" with his own choices. If we are given, say, several hurricane nominations at a time (it's that time of year, nothing against hurricanes in particular) then we can deal with the situation by tweaking the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Only for tie-breaking - I think the points were more useful a few years ago when there was lots of competition. But nowadays they are not so relevant. I recommend dropping them unless there are 2 or more articles nominated for the same day. Also, I'd say it is fine to nominate an article with 0 or 1 points, but at the same time diversity should be encouraged. --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general comment on TFA picking: I try very hard to diversify the selection of TFAs. However, as many of you have hinted at above, I am limited to what I have available to me. In addition, "diversity" itself has several aspects, all of which I need to take into account: subject, geographical region (US, UK, Australia, India, Brazil, etc.), article type (biographies, broad topics, specific events, modern-day, historical, etc.), even gender. On top of all that, there are other important issues: the primary author, maintainence of the article, presence of a suitable picture, reader interest, main-page appropriateness (not usually an issue), date relevance, time since promotion, and others that I can't think of right now. Raul and I do our best, but as the archives of this and other talk pages will tell you, we can't always satisfy everyone, or even most people. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I watch TFA only recenty and see that you are selecting well! If you don't go by points but by reason, we don't need to waste time in the calculation ;) - Please schedule a few more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I've only paid attention to TFA recently but I've been quite satisfied with Dabomb's work. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree, Dabomb is doing a good job while in a difficult situation through no fault of his own.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the points. The purpose of the page is to give the FA Director, or his TFA Delegate, suggestions for possible choices to be scheduled. It is not the scheduling mechanism itself. Small groups should not be making decisions on how to change its core function, nor its process. Such a radical change to the methodology of this page needs a wider discussion than the small handful of people participating. I suggest that those desiring change open an RfC. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Imzadi, and because the points highlight a range of factors affecting choices which are otherwise going to be forgotten: diversity, age and so on. They aren't often actually the basis for competition between nominations, especially with the current expanded number of slots, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. With the points system (as it was anyway) you knew somebody had checked the various factors. If there's no need for points this is likely to cease to be the case. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose eliminating points. At this time I can't see the benefit of eliminating the point system and though I'm not in love with the system, do see a benefit of keeping it. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• It's clear to me at least that there's no consensus to remove the requirement for point calculation; Imzadi and Johnbod make good points as well (no pun intended) and I now support retention of the points system. Bencherlite 06:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose seeing a lot of forgetting to check proximity and other various factors without the points. --Rschen7754 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• “Support”. This is tiresome; everyone lining up on ideological lines. The points are to be deprecated; issues to be hashed out by discussion as is bog-standard on Misplaced Pages. cf WP:BURO and WP:IAR ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) “jAck” 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a simpler process

Based on the above exchange of ideas I see the following: TFA wants to connect to specific days, but that is not possible for all of them. Example: the next dated requested is for 5 Oct, we have to fill 1-4 Oct with other articles. I suggest to split suggestions for those, don't list them in the tally but below the dated ones and simply discuss them. They certainly don't need any calculation of points. If you ask me, they don't even need "slots" and could be any number. To stay with the example: four are needed in the near future, one should be scheduled today if we want to maintain "a week in advance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between this suggestion and the current system of a nomination for a nonspecific date, of which there has been a steady number in the last couple of weeks (some successful, others not)? Why do we need a third section on the page? Are you working from a starting point that the community needs to suggest an article for every day, rather than leaving Raul/Dabomb to fill in the gaps between those nominations that they accept? If so, that would be a radical change to the way that TFA works and this page's part in that process. Bencherlite 11:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The difference: I seem to have been not clear enough that I suggest a second section (not a third) replacing the "Nonspecific date nominations" (whatever "Nonspecific date" may mean). I gave an example, to discuss that before changing, you removed it, it was like this. The differences: 1) the nominations without a date show below the others, to give prime importance to the others. 2) They are not part of the tally, don't need points, don't need slots. 3) There can be as many as wanted. - I am working from the starting point that TFA can be a collaboration, and that both Raul and Dabomb are busy in real life (see their talk). It seems that Dabomb is taking suggestions readily, why not help ;) Please discuss. - I will now add the removed suggestion in a slot, and inform the author, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This didn't work well before the present system was introduced. It isn't the job of this page to provide all the TFA choices, and it will be much more useful if it produces a smaller number of well-considered suggestions. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. If there are too many suggestions, we risk inadequate scrutiny by the relatively few people who edit here - compare how many complained on Talk:Main Page about an image on TFA compared to how many discussed it at TFAR before selection, even after notice of the discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of the image was posted at T:MP before and after the article was selected. Bencherlite 22:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

well, I don't see how it could be worse than the way it is now, with editors not notified and articles featured on the main page that are unprepared, have dead links and such? Who's in charge now? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

well, you are, I am, everybody can contribute a share. If dead links trouble you, look at the articles to come and do something about it. If you don't like a blurb, change it. If you think exact formatting is essential, format. If you have a better picture, suggest it. If you want something scheduled for 1 Oct - overdue - pick and schedule. "The Games must go on" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

well said; what's happeding of late is that this process is reverting to a proper wiki-model. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

the puling masses always whine about shite on the main page. This page is getting plenty of eyeballs ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

yeah, I think it really is. TFA got plenty of looks! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling overdue

Where I live is 5 Oct, scheduling is done for only three more days. I suggest to schedule Hanged, drawn and quartered and hope I won't have to do it myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is time, and we have a set of "emergency blurbs" ready to run if necessary. Please don't act outside of the existing system, thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I expressly said I don't want to. But I don't see that "there is time". To polish articles and blurb the best possible way, a week in advance seems minimum to me, two weeks would be safer. Is it right that the emergency blurbs are all biographies? We can do do better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not an emergency, yet. I see no need to panic. Meanwhile, there is nothing preventing you from polishing Hanged, drawn and quartered. --Rschen7754 23:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Define emergency, define panic, - three more are missing to look a week ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is. The owner. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about keeping things at least a week or two ahead. It's not an Emergency but that does not mean that action is not warranted. The 'existing system' is in long-term failure mode; bzzt ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that it's a concern that the people who are supposedly the "existing system" aren't doing their job; as one of the lead editors of the TFA up today, I was immensely grateful to have had a couple weeks that this article was in the queue, as we had to fix a couple dead links and do some other tidying. I think that TFAs need to be firmly scheduled two weeks in advance as routine practice; and if the existing people are burning out on the job, they need to let others who are trained and willing to help them. Gerda has been an excellent contributor to the process, and I think it is appropriate to ask a few more people to help with all of this. Montanabw 04:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that de.wiki has items scheduled right through to the end of the year, and ideas sketched out as far in advance as May 12, 2020? Why are we constantly living on the razor's edge here? My opinion is that it would a lot more sense to give editors time to prepare. Two weeks notice seems to me to be the bare acceptable minimum, and the level of organisation seen at de.wiki should be a target to strive for, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think scheduling that far in advance is good, as we can't predict how the world will change by the end of the year and how that might affect scheduling. But that's a tangent. Here's the thing: I do agree that how things are isn't ideal. Raul is frequently MIA, and so we're hoping that Dabomb, who apparently is very busy, remembers to schedule things. It's a bit screwed up, to be blunt. But until there's a better solution, that's what we have to deal with. Otherwise, I can schedule California State Route 78 (an article I wrote) and California State Route 57 the next day (another article I got to FA) and U.S. Route 131 the next (another road FA) and so on and so forth, and who's going to stop me? --Rschen7754 05:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain MIA, I have problems with English, and more problems with abbreviations. Do you really think it would set a good precedent to schedule (you? by what right that I would not have?) a work of your own? (I carefully avoided scheduling something that I had suggested, not even written.) I like community consensus, I like planning two weeks in advance, I think it might work and be "a better solution", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• MIA = Missing In Action (he's not here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that you have the right to break the rules and schedule an article, then why can't I break the rules and schedule all 35+ FAs that the U.S. Roads project has, all in a row? That leads to complete anarchy and chaos, and I don't think we want that. I do believe that the system needs improvement for the sole reason that Raul and Dabomb are mostly inactive right now, and I am trying to think of an orderly way to get us out of this mess. --Rschen7754 08:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting revealing thoughts. - Missing in action, thanks for the term, Crisco! Rschen, just in case you didn't understand me so far: I go for consensus. Look at the archive of September, produced in anarchy: it looks good to me. Dabomb did great scheduling, and I hope he will keep doing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

On de.wiki it is done purely by consensus. If events call for a different article to run, they put up an Alternativvorschlag (alternative proposal), and decide by consensus which one should be run. Here's something else we could emulate: a whole week's worth of articles at a glance, which looks like it would be a great way of visually checking if the week's articles have sufficient variety. -- Dianna (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like we have consensus so use Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered, so it could run on the 9th, and Allegro on the 10th. Then we would have nearly a week scheduled. I have another candidate prepped for a non-specific slot so I will post it for consideration even though my battleship nomination is still on the board. I am going to ask Ucucha why the bot is not notifying interested editors any more. -- Dianna (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine. Once I know Allegro is running, I can spend a little time polishing it this weekend. The time helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking we need more slots for non-specific dates; if we are going to choose by consensus the more stuff we have vetted the easier it will be to do it without having to pick random stuff at the last minute. Comments? -- Dianna (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Dabomb scheduled another 10 days, so we have a bit more slack for now. --Rschen7754 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's super excellent. I am off to hunt for another non-specific to clean up and nominate. — Dianna (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good news, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wishes for a TFA

After we faced more than once 1) an article which was not wanted to appear by its author at all, and 2) an article wanted a specific day by its author: can we place such wishes right on top of the article's talk? It would help us newcomers to the TFA process. Needless to say, I would also appreciate a long-term calendar of wishes, having seen a note to self for 2014. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could always try asking the principal author(s) *before* you decide to nominate, and then give them a chance to respond before you in fact nominate... might save you some wasted typing! Bencherlite 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In an estimated half of the cases (example today), said author is not active anymore. In other cases, I would have to ask three authors. - I did not yet consider my typing "wasted". - I am new to the process, so far I had believed articles were raised to FA standard to appear. I am learning: no. - I see no reason why not to mention on the talk page that an article is intended to appear a specific date for a specific reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You could also skim the article for any pertinent dates, just in case. Granted, you won't be able to predict everything, but it might catch some of these scenarios. --Rschen7754 07:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at Reception history of Jane Austen and saw no date that would have indicated to me that it should run 28 January. The list of pending requests doesn't go that far. That's one reason why I didn't yet "park" it as waiting. The other reason is that the blurb could well shortened by the competent literature people now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As a partial aside "try asking the principal author(s)" does indicate that some authors have a greater say over the management of articles than others. This really does go against WP:OWN: no one single author should be able to stop an article going on the front page, that should be left to the community as a whole, surely. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

People here get too hung up on the idea of "ownership". "People familiar with the topic are more likely to know of problems regarding it" isn't a blasphemy against the spirit of the internet, it's a simple statement of fact. There are any number of reasons an article shouldn't run at a given time (an upcoming major work on the topic that hasn't yet been worked into the article, upcoming more appropriate date, errors in the existing article that have yet to be corrected, potential legal sensitivities, etc). Per my comments to Pumpkinsky and Bencherlite earlier, as someone who's had to come out of retirement three times in the last month to get inappropriate nominations either pulled from the TFA queue or withdrawn from the requests page, thanks to certain people deciding that "If you are not one of the article's primary editors, it is generally considered polite to notify the primary editors on their user talk pages of the TFA nomination or (if they are no longer active) to add a message to the article talk page" doesn't apply to them, I would definitely support making pre-notification compulsory. – iridescent 19:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Note label

User: Br'er Rabbit has repeatedly blocked FAs and TFAs for the use of this notation format. Now that he has been banned, will this still be a problem? Serendious 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling overdue II

and all any-date slots are full. Please replace in the above the suggestion by Introduction to viruses --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Slot 1 is unused. Bencherlite 16:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

is unused NOW, I "parked" it because two people found it too close to the last South Indian one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)