Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Not archived

Moving articles off the list

Rick, as you review my work, do you want to delete resolved articles from the list ? For example:

Tool choked on special characters ? (do we delete them or keep them on the list)?
Logged, featured and Logged, archived can be removed from the list, I think?
Looks OK can be removed ?

Not sure what is the best way to handle withdrawn. If Raul agrees, maybe they should have their own log file in the long run, or stay listed here?

Ditto on never submitted; not sure if Raul wants to delete them, clear them or just leave them on this list.

On further work needed and unresolved, I put anything there that requires a closer look so we can work on them later (unless someone else resolves them sooner, they can be moved to resolved lists). On:

RBP FAC created. These are mostly FACs created for the purpose of articlehistory. Later, I learned how to do this better, but it's a lot of work (trudging through the old WP:FAC diff by diff to find when the article was moved off of FAC (without a FAC file) onto FA. I can do these later, converting them to archived FAC files and adding to the featured log by month.
Cleared redirect; a lot of these are probably because I didn't consistently use the GimmeBot "previous FAC" terminology. I guess they can all be edited to change to that terminology, and moved off the list?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete resolved entries where there was some edit made so the entry no longer meets the criteria for this list (e.g. a transclusion in the appropriate archive was added) or the tool simply messed up (special characters). I looked through the looks OK list last night and fixed a few that weren't already fixed. I think we can delete these now.

I think withdrawn should should go in the "not promoted" archives (which makes it "not promoted" rather than "failed"), although we should get Raul's opinion on this. These noms show in the history on the article talk page (right?) - if so, I think they should definitely be in the nomination archives. Another option is to "userfy" them (move them to a subpage under the creator's user page).

I don't know what to do with never submitted. We could ping the creator and let them know we found the nom file and ask what they want to do with it ("In the process of auditing the FAC archives we found your nom of <x> which was never added to WP:FAC. Would you like to complete the nomination process now by doing this? See <wherever> or contact me on my talk page for more information"). I don't think we should simply delete them. Userfy might be the right answer.

I looked at the admin attention list and deleted a couple. I actually don't think most of these can be deleted without taking them through WP:MFD.

Rick Block (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, lots of questions; I don't have a solid understanding of when articles can be deleted, so perhaps Raul will look at some of them. On the resolved, two sets of eyes are better than one; can you go ahead and delete anything that I've moved and that you're happy with? On some of the other situations, we should see how many there are when we're finished, before deciding how to handle them ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, I have another idea. Maybe we can handle the FACs which were never submitted by adding a note to the FAC saying "previous FAC not submitted", clearing the FAC, and linking it to the prior diff. That would cause them not to show up on this list, just as the others with a previous FAC, while leaving the FAC file ready for a new submission. I don't think contacting each editor will be useful, since these are often drive-bys. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elephant. This was a FAC submitted by a 10-year-old, so it was withdrawn without opposes. If we do this, the FAC is cleared, the history is preserved, but it doesn't show up on this list, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off list

Moved off list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off list, 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off list, 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off list, 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off list, 5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, never submitted

Unless anyone objects ...

Withdrawn FACs are only FACS that are removed without substantive objects (for example, a vandal submission, or an article removed right away to peer review). Archiving them might not make sense, as they have little content. I'd rather point at the old diff, and insert "previous FAC withdrawn", so the tool won't pick them up on further searches.

Never submitted FACs are often old or were drive-by noms. I'd like to point at the old diff, and insert "previous FAC never submitted to WP:FAC", so the tool won't pick them up on future searches.

See examples:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elephant (withdrawn)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gov't Mule (never submitted).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Elephant as an example, the milestones section on the talk page lists the nomination, with a link to what would be a current FAC (not the withdrawn one). This seems curious. Also, given what's in the milestones section, I'd expect to see it in the archived nominations for Sept 06. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the pros, cons and issues. Many (many!!) noms are withdrawn before Raul archives, so we'll have a lot of work to do (past and going forward) if we want to make the archives agree. Some of them are withdrawn for reasons leading regular editors to not want the facfailed to show in article history (that is, it was a driveby nom, a vandal nom, a nom before regular editors considered the article ready, etc.). Raul mentioned once on my talk page that if a nom was withdrawn *after* significant objects, I should go ahead and add it to the archive file (meaning it will be GimmeBotified as a failed fac), but if it was withdrawn without objects (that is, just based on some other anomoly), we don't need to archive it. I can think of cases where editors don't think a nom should be added to history as a facfailed when it was never a legitimate nom (the entire discussion at one FAC for El Greco with Yannismarou was that he didn't want it nommed yet as he was the main editor, it had been nommed by someone who wasn't an article editor, and it wasn't ready yet, so it was withdrawn without Objects—others are withdrawn as driveby or vandal edits, etc.). So, in such cases, even if it is linked in history, it's linked to a fac that says withdrawn nom, which some editors prefer to failed. If we want to go back and fix all of these withdrawn noms so that even those without signigicant objects are archived, it will be a lot of past work, as well as a chore going forward (someone will need to monitor for all withdrawn noms -- I sort of do that, but I don't concern myself with those that are withdrawn without significant objects). Linking to withdrawn nom was my idea of the fastest way to solve the older ones, and not create a problem going forward. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're wanting "withdrawn without objects" to effectively be treated as "didn't happen". That's fine with me, but then the question is what happens to the FAC file and in the history on the talk page. "Didn't happen" would argue that there should be no mention in the talk history and the FAC file should disappear (or something). With Elephant, there is a mention in the talk history and you've updated the FAC file to link to a specific version, not a separately archived copy (which is my understanding of what GimmeBot does). Reading the instructions at WP:FAC, I think I'd link to the withdrawn version from a new nom, but this goes against the spirit of "didn't happen". Since the reality is it did happen and the current procedures seem to be to do everything just like a failed nom except add it to the nomination archives, how about (going forward) moving the FAC file to .../withdrawn1 (or .../withdrawn2, etc.) rather than .../archive1, hard-linking to this file from the talk history and "clearing" the FAC file (editing the redirect left after the move) leaving links to all previous noms (withdrawn or not)? This would mean any page under Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ should be either:

A current FAC.
An archive of a successful or failed nomination (ends in .../archive*).
An archive of a withdrawn nom (ends in .../withdrawn*).
A "cleared" file linking to previous nominations.

I don't want to speak for Gimmetrow, but I'd imagine it would be fairly trivial to change GimmeBot to handle withdrawn noms this way (given a way to identify them).

It seems like we could treat incomplete nominations this way as well (treat them as withdrawn).

I actually don't care very much about this (appearances notwithstanding, I'm not big on bookkeeping) - but generally favor procedures that are both human and tool friendly. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both want them to agree with current procedures, but we may have different understanding of current procedures. GimmeBot only deals with articles moved to the featured or archived logs. Currently, if a FAC is withdrawn without Raul moving it to a log, GimmeBot doesn't necessarily even know about it, or update it automatically. So, my idea does the same; leaves a record in the FAC history of a former FAC without Objects, but doesn't add it to archives. I don't care much either way, either; I'm actually looking to do whatever involves the least amount of work :-) Linking to the old diff with a previous FAC wording is one step, leaves a history for anyone coming to submit a new FAC later, keeps it from showing up in your list, and doesn't involve archiving, GimmeBoting, etc. I'll leave Gimmetrow a note to peek in here (since I've had my head in the archives for a week, I'm probably losing sight of the big picture). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went back and reviewed the list, and you're right; there were some on the list that had significant Objects, so I archived them. The current list should be only FACs that were vandal, driveby, or premature submissions. Does that change your opinion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't care much (and what you're doing is fine with me). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, is it OK with you if I go ahead and use this technique (previous FAC diff) on those never submitted to FAC (e.g.; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gov't Mule) ? The list will be easier to work on if I can go ahead and resolve those and move them off the list. If it was never submitted, there should be no reason for it to register as an archived event, right ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This treatment of the FAC file is fine. I'm not overly keen on the wording of template:FACfailed in these cases (for the article's talk page). It links to the main FAC file (not the specific version), says the nom failed, and refers to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index (which hasn't been updated in about 3 years). We could perhaps generalize the wording of FACfailed, or create a new template for use in these cases. Any opinions on this? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generalize the wording (keep it simple, one template only), and change link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a stab at a rewording, and will change the link. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, a note on the "never submitted"; does your script check for a wikilink with that wording? Because these are diffs, not links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I started with all the subpages under WP:FAC. Then I ran "whatlinkshere" on each and filtered out the ones that were transcluded. Then I further filtered out any that were a redirect or had a link piped as "previous FAC". The list started as the remainder after doing this. The various filters were done using hand crafted tools, so the process can be redone with not much effort but unless anyone asks me to I'm not sure I'll repeat it anytime soon. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if you ever have to re-do it, just remember to also filter diffs to "previous FAC". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RBP FAC created

Rick, on these, the process we used when re-creating articlehistory on these was a shortcut, linking to the RBP. On others, later, I started stepping through the old WP:FAC diff by diff to find the comments and re-create the FAC files. Can your other tool be used to identify the month in which each of these articles was added to WP:FA? That will help me find the entries at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the FA lists, by month, on my PC (as far back as I've run the FA diff tool) - so, yes, I can find the month anything was added to FA. I'll annotate the list with the months. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, then we can rebuild those. Now that I understand it better, it seems maybe we were lead astray when building articlehistory. It seems to me now that RBP were essentially the same as FARs, and that all of them should have been added, but someone (I think it may have been ALoan) advised us not to. At any rate, I'd like to at least rebuild and archive the original FA date for that list of RBPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've annotated the ones in the list (I've only run the tool back to Jan 2003, so anything before then shows up as then or earlier - I could run it all the way back to Larry Sanger's first edit in Oct 2001 if that would actually be helpful). (and you mean FAC, not FAR, right?) -- Rick Block (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rick; I'll work on those next. Do you want to review all those that I just resolved with redirects? No, I meant FAR. Still trying to understand RBP. It seems like they were FAs that were reviewed and Kept or Removed under RBP, which makes them similar to FAR. No? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you annotate the list? (Betcha had an edit conflict with me and lost it ... eeek !!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

annotated here (hmm, must not have saved before). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the problem; WP:FAC didn't start up til June 2003, so the method I used on others can't be used on these. By what process were they added? Anyone could just add an article? If so, there's nothing for me to reconstruct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log only cares if they were before October 2003, should I just add them all there? Or should I quit now, and forget about those? Are we getting to the point of diminishing returns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is before I was around, but looking at a very old version of the talk page, I think anyone added anything but (it being a wiki and all) anyone was free to remove anything as well. Eloquence was around, and seems to have been involved in the shift to the nomination process. I'd expect he'd remember. To have an entry in a by-year nomination file for every FA and FFA, I added the moldy oldies (without noms) to Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003. Re "point of diminishing returns": didn't the return on this start at about 0? :) Could it go lower? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, right :-) I'm pretty much bombed out here from having my head in archives. From a list of more than 400, we made a big dent. Can we call it a day, pretty please :-)) What do you all think is still important to get done? Those 18 at the top may be really messed up, but I'm too tired to sort them out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]