Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

WP:VA tagging

At Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations, I suggested that we show which FAs are WP:VA on this list by superimposing a number (1-5) on top of the relevant stars to show what important articles have been promoted. This would encourage people to work on the VAs. Personally, realizing that the most important article (the VA level 4 Campbell's Soup Cans) that I have taken to FA was delisted is part of what is motivating me to get it relisted. Of my delisted FAs it is the only one I am making that effort on. It would also be interesting to see who does a lot of important FA work.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging the top editors of this page even though the page has not been very active lately @Rick Block, Spawn Man, SandyGeorgia, Hesperian, Mike Christie, David Fuchs, Moni3, Gary, Casliber, Marskell, and WillowW:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, Tony, but in my experience editors work on whatever they are interested in/knowledgeable about, and see as achievable, and this would have little if any effect on the motivation of editors who produce FAs. Many times they work in areas that are obscure or niche, and where articles have a low VA rating. I am a case in point, Yugoslavia in WWII is pretty niche, and even Josip Broz Tito and Ante Pavelić are only 4s. The depth of knowledge and work required to get a L1 or L2 article to FA is huge (I mean Human history?!), only Earth among the L1's is an FA and only Human has been previously, and only four (of 100) L2 articles have ever been FA, and they aren't any more. L3 is where things get more doable (at least for bios and science etc), which explains why there are 69 FAs there, but they are concentrated mostly in those two topics where the subject is reasonably narrowly defined and doable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

According to a list purported to be updated daily there are 7 current Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 aritcles. Level 1 through 3 have nothing I could aspire to take to FA. However, I respect those who can. I'd like to see who the people are who can do it. I'd like to know if there are people with multiple 3s. I'd be interested in seeing people like you with multiple 4s, which is something I look up to. I also think those who can improve important FAs would be more inspired to do it if there was more recognition for doing it. I think this proposal only has positives of motivating some to work on more important stuff. I think for almost all editors, the vast majority of their articles are from the 99.25% of articles that are not VAs. I only have 1 4 and an few 5s. I'd like to see who the stars are in terms of promoting important FAs. Is there any downside to making this change? I don't think so. Is there any upside? I do think so. You say no one would be motivated. I know this is untrue, because I myself am motivated to get my most important article back to FA. I don't know what your most important articles are, but if they are Tito and Pavelić, you may be someone unmotivated by importance. I am not saying everyone is. However, some are and I know this because I am one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Any tweak/acknowledgement that promotes editing of core articles is a plus in my opinion, so I can see merit in this but not overly fussed either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67, I misunderstood your response. I thought you were saying Josip Broz Tito and Ante Pavelić were FFACs that you had worked on. Bios don't make level 1 or 2. Barely a 100 make level 3. You seem to do a lot of bios, so 1 and 2 are probably a long reach. Maybe you should work on those two if that is your interest though. If you like creating from scratch almost all level 4 content was created before you even joined Wikipedia. Because of how niche your FAs are, I imagine you like to create from scratch like I did when I was more active. Figuring what important stuff is up your alley with WP:VA can also be interesting. I don't use it for FA content, but do so for template space content. War boats and military campaigns in your niche are probably not going to make VA, but if you had one VA article that got delisted, I bet you would take a close look at it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• (copying post here) Well since it ain't gonna happen, I had to resolve some of my curiosity by hand. Here is all the navel-gazing you can handle (I won't be able to do level 4 or 5 by hand). There are 8 wikipedians who have nominated at least 2 current FAs that are Level 3 or above Wikipedia:Vital_articles. Of those 8 User:Serendipodous (Neptune & Uranus) has the most career FAs with 30 (29 current). There are 2 WPians who have more career FA, but only 1 Level 3: User:SchroCat (Walt Disney 71 FAs—71 current) and User:Lord Emsworth (Elizabeth I of England 47 FAs—19 current). There are 4 WPians with more than 2 at Level 3 and above: User:Cwmhiraeth has 2 level 3s (Amphibian & Rodent) 1 level 2 ((Sea, 24 FAs—24 current), User:PericlesofAthens has 4 Level 3s (Augustus, Han Dynasty, Shen Kuo, Tang Dynasty 23 FAs—23 current), User:RJHall has 4 level 3s (Electron, Neptune, Star, and Supernova) 1 level 1 ((Earth, 20 FAs—17 current), User:TimVickers has 5 level 3s (Archaea, Bacteria, DNA, Influenza, and Metabolism) 1 level 2 ((Evolution, 13 FAs—12 current).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Bot changes name

@Rick Block, any ideas why the bot is changing my username? It never appeared as "csar" in any archive. czar 01:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The bot has also been displaying my Featureds since Tinder Fire under "Vami IV" and it greatly perturbs me. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The one in WP:FA2023 is written as Csar. Changing on those archives updates this page, I believe. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like it was [1] so we'll see what happens on next update. czar 14:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No drama. Looks fixed to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It's still displaying me as two different people named Vami_IV even after correcting the FA[year]/[month] pages. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I'm not seeing what the issue is. Your user name shows up in this list as it does at (for example) Wikipedia:Featured_articles_promoted_in_2024. If you want something different here, please change it there (and at the other by-year lists). It can't be exactly your sig which uses two different links, but it could be ♠Vamí_IV†♠. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

First FA

Is there a reason why I wasn't added to the list despite having my first FA promoted on April 2? I was the nominator, but had a co-nominator who had their stats updated on here when the article was promoted. -- ZooBlazer 22:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Meant to ping Rick Block -- ZooBlazer 16:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: The syntax for multiple nominators uses "&", not "and". I've fixed it with this edit (this list should be updated tomorrow). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Query

1876 FA Cup Final is listed under "FAs with no nomination history". That's one of mine (promoted in May of this year)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem was, but it seems to have been fixed by this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)