Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harizotoh9 (talk | contribs) at 03:55, 12 April 2012 (→Suggestions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

Reasoning behind limit of 7 requested articles

I've been watching this page for a little bit to try to learn how the Main Page selection process works. Can somebody explain the reasoning for limiting the requests to 5 articles that are tied to specific days plus 2 articles for unspecified days? Is it that there aren't usually more decent requests then that? Some other reason that I'm missing due to being new to this area? Cloveapple (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of the history at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 11#Where did my nomination go?, including this diff of how the page looked with 140(!) requests. SandyGeorgia's summary of the background to 5+1 (now 5+2) arrangement was "We ended up with the system because all other attempts to help Raul with mainpage scheduling were "gamed", and the page ended up being useless." There may be other explanations elsewhere. Bencherlite 08:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that pretty much covers it, except for an update: we went from a situation of too many requests to now having too few. The nonspecific date slot is going largely unused now, so until/unless page traffic picks up again, it seems like the 5 + 2 is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be using the two non-specific date slots, which is rather annoying since they're by far the most useful ones to me. Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that's because most editors are actually after a specific date? If that's the case, it would be good to hear-- to try to understand why Raul's attempt to give more input to the community via non-specific dates isn't being used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some usedrs may feel that with the point system, they are more likely to get an article on the main page if it has some sort of date connection... not to mention the pride of getting your topic on the front page on some notable anniversary of the topic. A suggestion? Create a little icon (a.la the FA star) editors can stick on their userpage when they nominate and pass a TFA. I think that this would encourage a wider participation than "I'VE got an FA, so now I gotta get it to TFA". However, you also open the door to issues such as the editor that did get a topic to FA wanting to wait until a specific anniversary arrives. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, please not another reward for doing something anyone can do already. Since the nonspecific slots are going begging, points are not the issue there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it shouldn't be necessary... But unfortunately few people are willing to put out effort without immediate gratification. As much as they are annoying, it would be a very very small price to pay to influence editors towards here; icons are cheap.

I think another problem is that a lot of these processes have to be found. There isn't a really obvious place (I don't believe it's in the various introductions/rules) that a new editor could go to see all the steps to moving articles up the chain (although maybe I'm just not aware of it). Just my thoughts anyways, I haven't spent too much time here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps simply sticking a line in the summary of how points work about the average points value of selected articles would let people know that the extra point for date relevance isn't always necessary, and might encourage additional use of the non-specific slots. GRAPPLE X 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

NB {{User TFA}} exists already, if people want something on their userpage about TFAing something (I have two). I don't think that having a ready-made template to give me a TFA icon instead of a userbox would have made any difference about my two TFA noms or would make me more likely to nominate my only remaining FA for TFA. I suspect that there are various editors of FAs for whom no temptation would be sufficient in order to make them want to stick up their pride and joy on the main page for 24 hours to be trampled all over. (Fortunately my two TFAs were complete snooze-fests so were relatively trouble-free, but not everyone is so lucky.) If people don't get gratification from having their article on the main page, then giving them an icon won't help either. I also suspect that many FA writers already know that there is a process for nominating articles to appear on the main page (and it isn't too difficult to find from any FA-related page) but perhaps they are like the insects that group together in large colonies: huddling together they are less likely to be the one picked out by the bird that loves to eat them, but drawing attention to yourself only increases the risk of selection. Bencherlite 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some usedrs may feel that with the point system, they are more likely to get an article on the main page if it has some sort of date connection - on the contrary, since almost nobody is nominating non-specific date articles, they are very *unlikely* to have their nomination bumped. Or, to put it slightly differently, it's pretty hard to lose a one-person race. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Though not impossible.... Bencherlite 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The non-specific date slot is an interesting conundrum to me. There are 11 articles which I have helped bring to FA - 10 as primary contributor. Of those 10, five have already run as TFA. One of the remainder I am holding for a centennial anniversary in July. So for my part, I have only four left to run, and I tend not to make general nominations because after five TFAs, I always felt it better to let others have their day if I'm not targeting something specific. Resolute 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to get more feedback like this, re why editors don't use the page. They are holding out for a specific date, they don't want the mainpage scrutiny of potential copyvio (no one will admit that :), they don't want mainpage exposure at all because it brings in kooks, they think this page is too confusing, whatever. Fact is, page isn't being used when Raul tried to give the community more say in putting forward TFAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Poll: Why is no one making non-date specific nominations?

Per above, I'd like people to post below the reasons why they personally aren't doing it. Raul654 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of this page before.

1. I had heard of the page but the emphasis on the the complicated points formula always made me assume that basically the only way to get things scheduled was through anniversaries. I think we should do a better job of encouraging non-date-specific requests, because date-specific things are currently unduly favored. (There are no anniveraries for most biology/anthropology/etc/etc/etc articles.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm saving the FAs I wrote for a particular date

1. Granted I've only written one so far but I do have a date in mind for it. I doubt future efforts from myself will be kept for specific dates though. GRAPPLE X 20:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Two of my four FAs so far have already run: the first ran without being nominated, whilst the second (Mathew Charles Lamb) was successfully nominated early last month in a non-date specific slot. The other two both qualify for relatively few points and are rather trivial soccer biographies, so I am saving them for a specific date. I am intending to nominate one of them, Robin Friday, for Good Friday (a quick skim through his biography will explain the joke). —Cliftonian (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Last time I checked around here was quite a while ago, and low-scoring articles were getting bumped regularly. Since all of my FAs are low-scoring, I was waiting around until a date connection came up and no other video game articles had ran recently. Since it's slowed down a lot, I may make more use of the non-specific date slots in the future. --PresN 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   PresN, pls revisit-- the question is about the non-date specific nominations, which don't need or get date points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   Point still stands- 9-12 months ago, nominating a 0-point article for the non-date spot was a good way to get your article bumped within days, as far as I could tell. A 1-pointer in the specific date spot was a better way to go, if still easily replaced. I did not realize until now that the non-date spots were going empty. --PresN 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

4. As PresN says, low-scoring date-connected articles have always been easily bumped in the past. So something like Huia, which I contributed to helping when it went through FAC, would be nice to have on Feb 6 because there aren't any other NZ-related FAs that haven't run as TFA, but to get it to run there used to be tricky because the connection is tenuous by the former level of competition that PresN mentions. Iridia (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. This option is often my intent, but the article gets posted on the Main Page well before that date comes close. An option to prevent a un-nominated MP appearance would help here. --mav (reviews needed) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
6. As the author of several FAs, many of which have been TFA, I think PresN has a point. There is some carryover mentality about how low-scoring articles were practically guaranteed to get bumped in the past. Some of us still haven't moved past this mentality, even though it is no longer valid, and tend to save our nominations for specific dates. Plus, there is always the chance that date relevance will lead to more page views. I was really excited to be able to run Governor of Kentucky on the day of the gubernatorial election last year (because I'm a dork), although I'm not sure it did all that much for the pageview count versus any old day. Acdixon 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
7. All of my FAs are ships which have a variety of significant dates to hang a TFA on. And with major anniversaries for the American Civil War and World War I upcoming I really don't need to do non-date specific noms. In fact many of my articles are clustered a bit too tightly together and I could have problems spreading them out. I could nom articles in May, June and October with significant anniversaries, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Being on the main page makes the article the target of vandalism

1. I'm kook-averse, and can really do without the increased level of vandalism a main page appearance attracts. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   This is a very good point. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2. While I won't say I'd never nominate an article for TFA, it'd have to be for some really really really good reason - like a multiple-100th year anniversary ... otherwise, I'd rather avoid TFA as much as possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   Hi Ealdgyth -- for the avoidance of doubt, as my lawyer would say, did you have a particular reason for avoiding TFA aside from needing the spur of that once-in-a-lifetime anniversary? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   I've had 18 of "my" articles on the front page ... the best I can hope for then is benign neglect. Sometimes it's much much much worse. I don't need the stress of dealing with an article on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

3. I don't avoid TFA, but if it helps I'll weigh in with what would turn me off it, and that's mainly having the article become a vandal/kook-magnet. I think I've had about 10 main-page appearances, half that I nominated because of a particular anniversary (I think all before there were two non-specific date slots) and half that just came up with the rations. I'm not sure why "my" articles gain selection to fill empty slots but I've always assumed it's because they're a known quantity, content/quality-wise, and perhaps because they're on personalities who aren't well-known to the general public, and hence are at lower risk of subject-related vandalism -- which I guess brings me back to why I'm prepared to nominate occasionally... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Per Malleus and Ealdgyth only less so. Numerically I mean, (rather then numerologically), in terms of TFAs. Yes indeed the vandalism to useful ratio of edits is high - and perhaps getting more so? When it all gets too much sometimes I do crosswords you know - at least no-one comes in and rubs out the correct answers while you are not looking. Give me a shout if they (the TFAs) get automatic protection. Must dash. Ben MacDui 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never felt like doing so.

1. I've never nominated Tourette syndrome, first because I was worried about coprolalia-related vandalism, but lately because I'm still trying to update to newer sources (although little of substance has changed). Once I get sources updated, I would rather nom it during some significant TS-related event. I've never nominated any other TFA because I feel significant contributors should nominate when they feel most prepared to deal with TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Conversely, I've felt like a bit of a dick nominating mine unless there was an overwhelmingly good season or time-specific idea I had....which is why I mostly nom other folks' Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Never bothered, although maybe now I will in the future. ResMar 03:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
4. I have had four main page appearances, but have never nominated. I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that the date non-specific category was for technical articles that not associated with a date. I have an article listed as a potential candidate for 11 April, but an nervous about nominating now that I cannot lock the page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   Now you know how the rest of us feel. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Other (please specify)

1. I've been interested in nominating articles that looked interesting to me, but I feel that the nomination of articles by people who didn't work on them is discouraged. In the past, some people who work on FAs have told me that they don't like the articles they worked on to be on the main page, due to the amount of vandalism some articles receive. I've not nominated any articles in the non-specific date slots because I want to avoid animosity form people who worked on them (I did nominate one article for a specific date where the article's primary author had left Misplaced Pages). Personally, I feel that all Misplaced Pages editors should be encouraged to nominate articles to be on the main page, whether they worked on them or not (obviously, people who edited the articles could object to an article running if they think there are good reasons for the article not to run). However, if nominating of articles by non-authors isn't encouraged, I won't be nominating any of them. Calathan (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   My experience has been that all but the most subtle vandalism usually gets reverted quickly by members of the community, even when I'm not around to "baby-sit" a TFA that I worked on. If someone else wants to nominate one of my articles, all they'd have to do is ask! Acdixon 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   I do not agree with how the section my comment was in was changed, so I have moved it here. I am not at all concerned with vandalism of articles when they are on the main page, as I think Misplaced Pages editors generally do a good job of quickly reverting any vandalism to TFAs. Instead, I am concerned about other editors being angry at me for proposing articles they worked on be put on the main page. While the reason I think those editors might be angry at me is because they are worried about vandalism, I think those worries are unfounded. Calathan (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

2. A combination of reasons:
   • Generally, I think the current system does not encourage people to do so. Perhaps if we had a specific page for non-date specific requests, people would realize they could nominate without a date.
   • The sense that we should defer to the original nominator, as noted above.
   • The fact that this doesn't look like too much of a problem, since we rarely seem to be short for noms. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. It doesn't occur to me to suggest them for non-specific dates. Also, I tend to think you do a decent job of the scheduling, with us chipping in to suggest date-prompted articles. Also, the well-intentioned methodology on this page is way too bureaucratic, IMHO, which is off-putting. --Dweller (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. I have ideas for things to bring to the main page, but I don't have any confidence in my ability to write a good blurb. In case no one has noticed, I'm not what you would call "concise", and blurb writing is very much an exercise in 'pack the most information into the least amount of space'. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
   • Perhaps certain users could make themselves available to help with this on request? —Cliftonian (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
     • Was thinking along similar lines... On request, and if people have a go at a first cut for me to prune, happy to be one such person. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
       • I'd be happy to volunteer for this too. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
         • Anyone volunteering to write blurbs would be well advised to watchlist WP:ERRORS and see the kinds of things from the mainpage that are picked apart there ...that will help you know what kinds of things to watch out for ... fair warning ... It's the most thankless job on Wikpedia. Even more than FAC delegate :/ What I'm seeing here is that TFAR needs better advertising about non-specific date requests. That goes along with FAC needs its own newsletter. That goes along with ... oh, all that stuff I wanted to talk about two months ago :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
   • Related to this and to the near lack of a TFA we had a couple months ago when the delegates were all unavailable at the same time, It might be valuable, if some editors are so inclined, to poke around some of the eligible FAs and start building a mini project around preparing them for a TFA date. Namely, identifying whether there is a closely related date for the article, asking the primary contributors for feedback on running, verifying that the article (especially if older) is free of obvious deficiencies, and writing TFA blurbs. Hell, if you had only two volunteers doing one article per week, you could keep such a system working while relieving pressure on Raul and allowing people like Tony1 the chance to copyedit a blurb before an article runs. Resolute 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
   • I don't know any articles I've worked on other than Hoover Dam which have reached FA status. - Denimadept (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I don't really see it as a problem. The current mix of front page articles has been diverse and interesting. Everybody associated with the FA process is doing an excellent job already, so I don't see that posting nomination suggestions would necessarily improve matters. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
6. I haven't yet nominated anything. However my first look at the nominations page gave me the impression that since there were fewer slots for non-specific dates they must be less wanted. Perhaps upping the non-specific date slots to 5 would send the signal that both kinds of nominations are equally desired? Cloveapple (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Other opinion

• It would be a better result if Raul (and Dabomb87) took a greater role in shaping the sequence of TFAs themselves. If no request is made, or it's not a good one, I'm fine with a bit of executive decision-making. What underlies my feeling is that lobbying by FA writers doesn't necessarily deliver the best for the main page (I'm not referring to anniversaries, etc, which are fine by the current system, I think). A significant problem occurs when a TFA has no picture. I've had complaints from senior wikimedians about this ("dull, unsuitable, to have a slab of text alone on the main page"). If I were running it, the availability of a suitable pic would play strongly in my decision—although I'd still be a little flexible.

  Another thing bugging me is the lack of an effective coordinated strategy to update and buff up each TFA before the day. Tony (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to guess at the balance of two primary causes:

• One would work against overall use of this page. With only taking 7 at a time for a 30 day window, and most staying here until the date is close, it looks like only a fraction of TFA's come from the Misplaced Pages process and the majority come from a one-man show by some unknown process. So this page lacks some creditability, a sort of "talk to the hand" situation that, after they jump through all of the hoops, only accesses less than half of the monthly slots.
• Second is that I'm guessing that a common impetus to come to this page (despite other issues) is date driven. I.E. "It would be cool to get our article up on this special date" provides extra impetus to go through this process. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you calculate that - a good deal more than 7 per month come via here. Look at ], which was only listed here for a day or less before being scheduled. Articles that get bumped off still have a good chance of running if there is nothing better than them for that day. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say just seven. I don't know the fraction but based on the parameters, I'm guessing less than half. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can believe about half, which is a glass half-full imo. If it were much more we would probably have difficulty maintaining balance among subject areas, countries etc. A look at Misplaced Pages:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page illustrates the problem - this page should maybe be more prominently linked to btw. This coming month may be a bit untypical, with a cluster of strong candidates in mid & late April & little in the first 10 days, apart from April 1 of course. Time for some non-date-specific noms. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that and agree that something else is needed. But what is the system for picking the other half? North8000 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's up to Raoul & Dabomb, but one can see we get a minimum of 1 animal & 1 plant/fungus per month (these are rarely date relevant of course), & the same for other categories with plenty of candidates. But others are not replacing themselves & may be being doled out more slowly. The "art & architecture" group are down to about 5 buildings and one could forsee them running out entirely in the future, as with other groups. New non-architecture promotions in this area get to mainpage very quickly. TV, storms, transport, ships & songs/albums etc have to wait a while, often a long while. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe there IS a good system for the other half. Like "two people select them so as to achieve a nice mixture of topics". But the system is an unspoken secret. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate page format proposal

Reading the comments above plus some of the recent commentary at Talk:Main Page and User talk:Jimbo Wales has got me thinking about an alternate way to format the TFA page that would both hopefully generate more requests and give the community more of an opportunity to comment on main page selections and blurbs before they hit the Main Page. I threw together a rough draft of what it would look like here (rough because I couldn't figure out how all the TFA templates worked; ideally the "TFA not selected yet" message would appear instead of a redlink). The main TFA blurb pages would be protected, and would only be edited by Raul or Dabomb when the article is selected. Before they are completed, the "TFA not selected yet" message would appear. Nominations and discussions on the dates' TFA selection would take place on the transcluded talk pages, which would also provide a record of the discussion for each date. The TFA delegates would commit to selecting TFAs one week out so give the community sufficient time to comment on the selection before it hit the main page. Suggestions could be made for the earlier fourteen days, using the same point system we use now. A bot would advance the page each day by removing the FA on the main page and adding the next day 21 days out. Reducing the nomination window to 21 days reduces the risk of the page growing out of control as it did before.

This new format does do away with the non-specific date selections, but with fourteen open days there should be plenty of room for articles with few or no points to sit. If there is no explicit date connection, Raul or Dabomb can always select them for a different date.

Let me know what you think. –Grondemar 01:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I dislike it. It's just to large, and removing the non-specific date field seems like a poor idea to me. That being said, I'm not a regular here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fools suggestions

I guess it's that time of year again when I begin soliciting suggested blurbs for April Fools. So, write up your suggestions and post them here I can judge them. The goal is to fool people into dismissing the article as an obvious hoax when in fact it is completely true. Bonus points for funny or weird subject matter. Raul654 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about pigeon photography? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I'd say that's the top of my list (It's very, very much in line with what I'm looking for) :) Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been going on here for a long time now. Basically everyone that has commented there feels pigeon photography is one of if not the best choice. Only other suggestions that are already FAs are Olivia Shakespear and Typhoon Gay (1992).--Found5dollar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon Photography looks very good: is there a proposal for what the actual extract will be. I would prefer as little change as possible. Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A blurb which skirts around the actual application of pigeon photography might be best, leaving a reader to wonder "and just what are these pigeons taking pictures of?" without needing too much re-writing. I'm all in favour of misdirection, but that which uses as little actual change as possible is always the most effective. GRAPPLE X 20:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pigeon Photography. Would very much prefer not to see Olivia Shakespear run on April Fools Day. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why Olivia might even have been suggested as an April 1 candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pigeon Photography My third year in nominating it--T1980 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon photography was a military aerial photography technique invented in 1907 by the German apothecary Julius Neubronner, who also trained pigeons to deliver medications. A homing pigeon was fitted with an aluminium breast harness to which a lightweight miniature camera could be attached for operation during flight. The pigeon photographers' indifference to explosions made them ideal for military applications, and they served with distinction during the First World War, both as photographers and messengers. The reckless over-deployment of pigeon volunteers at Verdun and the Somme induced severe posttraumatic stress disorder among Neubronner's charges, which forced him to abandon his experiments. The French and German militaries both attempted to persuade the photographers to return to the field during the Second World War, but failed to do so. Pigeons in the United States were later drafted for espionage photography duty by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The technique was adapted for civilian use by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which soon expanded its photographer ranks far beyond pigeons. Animals such as falcons, cats and dogs were accepted as BBC photographers as late as 2004. (more…)

Too silly? —Cliftonian (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think we can really justify the designation as volunteers, nor do I see what would amount to avian stress disorder. The dog and cat camera pieces have nothing to do with the BBC. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The references to "volunteers" and "stress disorder" were just supposed to be a joke, but okay then. I take your point about the cats and the dogs, that was just me trying to streamline, assuming for April Fool's Day it didn't really matter. More Fool me! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon photography looks perfect but please keep jokes and misleading text out of the write-up; the very concept sounds bizarre enough. --mav (reviews needed) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The whole idea is to have a completely serious caption. --Tone 08:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That blurb needs some work I think, but it's probably basically on the right lines. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If people feel a need to make the blurb funnier, let's at least do it in style and stay with the truth. Maybe something like the following? (Some of the information is taken from the Julius Neubronner article.)

Pigeon photography was an aerial photography technique originally invented in 1907 by Julius Neubronner, German film amateur and court apothecary of Empress Frederick. Neubronner, who had been using pigeons for medicine delivery and film special effects, came up with the idea after one of them absented iself for four unexplained weeks. Notable later refinements of the method include the use of clockworks by a Swiss clockmaker, batteries by the Central Intelligence Agency, and falcons by the British Broadcasting Corporation. After experimental deployment of the method in the Battle of the Somme, it was used again in a military context by the Germans in the Second World War and later by the United States. Neubronner's house in Kronberg near Frankfurt, the Streitkirche, was originally built by the protestant citizens as a catholic church, so there was plenty of space for the inventor's family, pharmacy, and experiments. Neubronner's paper tape factory is still in business, his films have recently been restored and published on YouTube, and his house still holds the pharmacy (as well as a museum). But the art of pigeon photography today is relegated to enthusiasts such as the prince in a recent film version of Sleeping Beauty. (more…)

This may be a bit too extreme. I guess halfway between this and the original lead is ideal, but I wanted to present all the material that we can work with. Hans Adler 12:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it reads too much like a biography of Neubronner... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's a problem. Maybe it's best to just use the existing lead, and maybe just work a little bit too hard obviously trying to make it sound plausible... Hans Adler 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a more-or-less verbatim write-up from the article itself. Others are welcome to change it, but I'll revert if the changes are too silly or over-the-top. Remember, the key here is to be completely true, but with the goal that someone reading it on April 1 won't be able to tell if it's a hoax or not. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I dove in her. Revert, as inapplicable! —MistyMorn (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert. When you rewrite a text for style, make sure that you keep the meaning or only change it when you know what you are doing. Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in the sources to support the claim that the technique "stalled" (whatever that means) in the First World War, as opposed to the military losing interest afterwards. But there were also several other inaccuracies, so that I felt it better to revert wholesale than to fix everything individually. Hans Adler 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hans: Point taken. With the benefit of hindsight, I probably should have started my preliminary work in a sandbox before introducing suggestions step by step.

What I've done for the moment is:

1) to save (here) the version I was working on, which I realize had become over-egged and overlong;

2) submit (here) to you, and any other interested parties, a few changes which I feel may be good.

(Fyi, I realized that the WWI sentence needed attention and was working on it; "stalled was used in the sense of come to a standstill.) —MistyMorn (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier grumpiness. I have now gone over the World War I information in the lead once more. Hans Adler 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I'd let myself get carried away with the fun. As an outsider, so to speak, I think inclusion of material on WWI is good for the lede as a whole. For April Fools Day only, I quite liked the idea of working in lipstick-sized cameras towards the end. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Points query

Does someone who pays more attention to this page want to have a guess as to how many points Biddenden Maids would get for 9 April? This was written with Easter Monday in mind, and to my mind shouldn't run on any other date as it has such relevance to EM. It gets 1 point for age and 1 point for date, both relatively straightforward—however, diversity and representation are a different kettle of fish. It's about as unclassifiable as an article can get, and depending on how one looks at it, it fits equally well into Culture, Food, Medicine, History or Mythology. Thus, it can legitimately be said to have a point total of anything from -1 to +5. This in turn would affect whether it bumps one of the existing entries. (Although it would push Vimy Ridge out of the 9 April slot if it ran, I don't see that as a problem, since VR is equally appropriate on the 12th.) Any thoughts? – iridescent 2 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd classify this primarily Legend/Mythology and secondly as Women's history. There may be some historical basis, but it is so long ago and the sources are poor so we will never know. So check the archives if a legend/mythology article has ran in the last 6 months. I think it might get 4 points total. Vimy likely has 5 points, so Vimy Ridge would win out. I'd recommend trying to have it run as a non-specific date TFA. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd vehemently oppose it running any day except Easter or Easter Monday (Vimy Ridge wasn't nominated for 9 April, it's only in the 9 April slot because someone unilaterally changed the date against the nominator's wishes). TFA is utterly thankless, especially for a vandal-magnet article like this; on Easter it has enough cultural significance to justify the hassle of running it, but there's no point it running on any other date. – iridescent 2 10:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

May 17th is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. I think an article fitting that theme would be nice. I have found the article The Well of Loneliness, which is a lesbian themed novel that was subject to censorship and trial. I think it would have 3 points total. Can anyone think of an article that might be a better choice or have more points? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is perhaps the best choice. Other options would be biography articles on an LGBT person. David Bowie, Angelina Jolie, Russell T Davies, Nicolo Giraud and Don Dunstan (who also helped decriminalise homosexuality in South Australia) are the available LGBT biographies. Pyrrhus16 07:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to check to see if there was a better article that I had missed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Widely Covered checking

How do I check if an article is Widely Covered other than manually checking various language Wikipedias? I ask because I think it is likely Battle of Vimy Ridge is Widely Covered and that is currently a suggestion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You count the interwikis (either looking at the bottom of the sidebar on the left-hand side of the article or looking at the links themselves at the bottom of the page in edit mode). "Widely covered" means 20 interwikis, and Vimy Ridge has 13, so it won't get an extra couple of points - unless, of course, you have time and the language skills to write seven stubs quickly! Bencherlite 08:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how effective the bots that do these are when the title is not exactly the same - as it is for a biography. Here it won't be. You might check a couple of other languages to see they have the same list. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I've checked all 13 and none of them have interwikis to other "missing" articles. The German Misplaced Pages has de:Schlacht von Arras (1917) but that is about Battle of Arras (1917) (of which Vimy Ridge was one part), so the list is probably complete. Bencherlite 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove Tiananmen Square self immolation page

I edit and watch in the Falun Gong space of articles. I strongly suggest that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page be removed from the main page. It is currently subject to intensive, controversial editing and to some degree edit warring. The tenor of the page has changed dramatically in the last 48-72 hours, with upwards of 60 edits that quickly changed important parts of the article. I am about to submit a note for its Featured Article status to be reconsidered, with a view to rescinding that status, because of this. The page is not stable and currently suffers neutrality issues.

Background to this note:

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; editor user:Ohconfucius was the lead editor at the time. He put tremendous effort into seeing the page reach FA status. The page was revisited in 2011 by a group of editors who discussed major changes quite exhaustively (lead by several editors who are more sympathetic to Falun Gong). At that time, editor user:SilkTork wrote that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done."--a lot of the changes that occurred were discussed extensively. Consensus was reached. That was early 2011.

Ohconfucius re-appeared a couple of days ago and made a flurry of changes, apparently in an attempt to return the page, in whole or part, to how it was in 2009, when he edited it. He ignored the interim discussion. The changes made in 2011 identified and resolved misrepresentation, omissions, original syntheses, and failure to cogently present the views of Falun Gong or third parties in a manner commensurate with their notability, etc. Ohconfucius preceded to edit, apparently bringing the page back to how it was in 2009, without discussion or any attempt to form consensus. An example: the 2009 version did not say that the use of torture on Falun Gong practitioners increased in the wake of the immolation; that was added to the page in the 2011 version; Ohconfucius deleted that piece of information when he started editing the page again. Ohconfucius has made around 60+ edits, judging by the history. Most of those edits, many of them controversial, were not discussed. He was asked on his talk page and on the immolation talk page, and for the most part failed to do so while continuing to make make changes that changed the tenor of the article. His peers have expressed exasperation at this behavior.

This is obviously a sensitive topic. The incident led to people being tortured and killed. It thus deserves to be treated with circumspection and caution. That caution has not been forthcoming, and I think it would be valuable if an administrator would intercede and monitor the discussion, because attempts for other editors to discuss it with Ohconfucius have not been effective. There is a behavioral problem when an editor makes that many changes unilaterally while ignoring the discussions, particularly when it's a featured article under ArbCom sanctions. He has been politely and repeatedly asked not to make substantial changes, including those that misrepresent sources--which he's done more than once--or change the balance of the page without discussing, but has not done so. It is difficult to know what to do, except find some time to breathe.

Thus, I am strongly urging that the page be removed from the front page as a featured article. I am also entering a request for the page's feature status to be reconsidered. And I am initiating a mediation request so that an uninvolved editor can step in between Ohconfucius, the page, and other editors, to make sure that proper process is being followed on this important and contentious topic.

Further notes: I have made a decision not to edit the page amidst the current strong dispute. Ohconfucius has an open opposition and animus toward Falun Gong. I have said to Ohconfucius that it is my opinion that he is too close and invested in the topic, and should stick to the voluntary self-ban he initiated some time ago. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

General Relativity on April 18th

I was about to nominate General relativity as a non-specific date, but then I noticed that the anniversary of Einstein's death is coming up on April 18th. Do you think I should wait and nominate it for the 18th or does it not really matter? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We had Introduction to general relativity as TFA on April 18, 2010 (the 55th anniversary of Einstein's death), so it is likely too soon to feature the General relativity article. Pyrrhus16 12:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule preventing it? It has been two years, so I think that is enough of a gap between the articles. I would like some Einstein themed article to run, and the GR article makes the most sense. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The 18th sounds good to me. 2 years is easily long enough of a gap! Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

These are just a few suggestions I've thought up.

1. The Misplaced Pages:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page article needs to be more prominently listed. It should be accessible from all the FA related pages. 2. The list perhaps could be re-organized as a table or series of tables. It would include extra information that might make easier to use in selecting articles. This can include:

• Age
• Broad category and specific category (eg. "Physics" and "Physics biography")
• Whether it's a vital topic, underrepresented, or a core topic
• Dates that might be of interest if relevant (death, birth, discovery, etc)
• Current total points of the article. This would have to be maintained by a bot, and would be more complex than the others and is not essential.

3. Increase the request slots. Non-date specific should be increased to three, and date specific should be increased to 7. The reason is that an article can be nominated a long time before it is set to run, and it can sit and eat up space on the request board for almost a month. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)