Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Include former featured articles?

Is this list meant to include former featured articles?--Pharos 19:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am not quite sure, but I do not think they are included. The original list was gathered by a script. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I noticed at least one, Belgium, on this page. It was actually listed under the username of the person who unsuccessfully renominated it after it had been removed, rather than the original successful nominator, which I've corrected. I don't know if it's such a bad thing to recognize the efforts of those who helped Wikipedia along in the early days, even if their nominations msy have been outstripped by the evolving standards of FAs.--Pharos 19:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• This list includes all the data I have been able to find (and is generated automatically from a separate source list I will post soon). There are 100 or so articles that are from "brilliant prose" days, and don't have nomination history. The former featured articles I've been able to find don't have original nomination logs. I wouldn't mind if "former featureds" were included, but it seems they should probably be noted somehow (perhaps with a different character than ★, anyone have any suggestions ?) -- Rick Block (talk) 00:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

source lists posted

I've now posted the source lists from which this list was generated. They are at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003, Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2004, and Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2005. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

User:Bmills and I are one and the same. Filiocht | Talk 10:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Nominator used as a proxy for author?

A ranking by author is probably of more interest than by nominator (although they do coincide to a degree, and more so than they used to). Obviously it is nigh on impossible for this to be generated automatically. Would it be inappropriate for me to change my entry to "my" featured articles as opposed to the ones I have nominated? Pcb21| Pete 14:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There are three reasons I respond "yes" (would be inappropriate).

1. By the time an article achieves featured status it's typically been through peer review and has certainly been through WP:FAC. I think it would be at least rare for any featured article to be considered to have a single author.
2. Even in cases where an article is nearly exclusively the result of the efforts of a single editor, claiming "authorship" for a wikipedia article strikes me as very unwikilike. Wikipedia is inherently a collaboration.
3. The reason I created this list was to try to increase the percentage of Wikipedia's articles of featured status. To this end, the act of writing the article (although critically important) is not, by itself, sufficient. Featured is more about taking an article through the WP:FAC community comment process. This list is an attempt encourage editors to do this, regardless of whether they wrote the article themselves.

If you or anyone else would like to put together a list of featured articles by primary (or exclusive) author, you're certainly welcome to do so. However, I ask you to please do this with a separate list. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree that it is a good idea to increase the number of FAs (FAC currently requires a pretty thick skin). Pcb21| Pete 19:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your reasons; they are good ones. I'll just say that in my case it was somewhat disappointing not to find my name here. Looking a little deeper, I see it was because the very kind User:Johnleemk nominated Duran Duran, saying, "I just stumbled on this — it seemed so good (and surprisingly chockful of references) that I was surprised it's not a featured article yet." I was in the process of editing that article to meet the FA criteria when he found it, and I responded to all the objections in a couple dozen in-depth edits; as near as I can tell, the single edit John has made to the article was a vandalism reversion. I have nothing but respect for him, and he certainly deserves his many FA stars, but I'd sure have enjoyed receiving a smidgen of this intangible reward myself...  :) — Catherine\^talk 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Catherine - There are a number of articles with co-nominators listed (e.g. Paragraph 175, also from 2004). I certainly don't want this list to be taken as a snub by anyone. Since you not only primarily wrote the article, but responded to the FAC comments, I don't think any reasonable person would deny you this "honor". I'll edit Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2004 and add you as a co-nominator (and you'll show up here the next time I regenerate this page). I'm glad you brought it up! -- Rick Block (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Rick! I know it's a tiny little thing, but since the rewards Wikipedians receive for in-depth edits are all small and intangible, I really appreciate being included on this list. (Now to start working on star number two....) Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 18:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stars

"each star corresponds to..." - dunno, they all look like "?" to me. Perhaps more ASCII-fic symbol, like * could be used?  Grue  08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it as a star. Since wikipedia is utf-8 now, I suspect for "full enjoyment reading" it will become increasingly important to have a full unicode character set installed. I saw some instructions for how to do this fairly recently (which I haven't been able to find yet). Would it suffice to add a pointer to these instructions (if/when I find them)? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

How did you get the data?

I'm just curious- how did you get all the data? Surely you didn't send some poor sod to troll through the FA archives. Borisblue 05:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote some code to analyze the monthly FA nomination archives (for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2005), which resulted in the the FAs by year articles (like Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003). I've wrtten some more code that takes these articles and creates the table with the stars. It doesn't work fully automatically yet, so I haven't posted the code but I will at some point. The current version is written in Unix shell and awk. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Other featured content

While FA's take more work than other featured content, I was wondering if there might be interest in producing lists of other featured content nominators. Guettarda 07:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, somebody needs to give me an extra star for Thomas Pynchon!

(sticks hands in pockets and walks away, whistling with utmost modesty)

Anville 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles from March 2006 are not included yet. I've been trying to update this about once a month. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Pretty neat page... I had completely forgotten that I nominated Dred Scott v. Sandford, Smile (album) and The Temptations. I barely even worked on those, though. And salsa music is missing - is that just from lack of updating? Tuf-Kat 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - articles nominated in March 2006 are not included yet (see Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2006). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that most of December or January articles are included nither, this had a backlog for a few months. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Last week I updated it including articles nominated through February 2006. If there's anything missing please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Total count

This is a indeed neat page—never hurts to encourage making FAs. I'm wondering if we're missing anything though. Excel tells me there are 968 stars. We have 998 FAs plus 100+ I'd guess that have been removed. Assuming people don't lose stars for former features, shouldn't this page have more than 1100+ listed? Marskell 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's out of date in a way, also several users also removed their FAs when it was delisted in FARC. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are missing entries due to FAs that predate the current FAC mechanism as well. The page is generated (automatically) from a script I run that parses the Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003 through Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2006 articles. The records from 2003 are kind of sketchy. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree this is a really nice page. It shows the Pareto distribution, or the 80-20 rule. Not quite that extreme, though. Almost 70% of all FA's come from the 30% of editors who have nominated more than one article. Maybe I'll get out of the one-page-only category one of these days (wink). Casey Abell 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

next update?

the list still shows me at 4 FAs but i now have 5.... when is it scheduled to be auto-updated? Zzzzz 17:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been doing the updates on a strict schedule, but generally try to wait until the FACs for a given month are pretty firmly settled (like middle of the next month). Then I update Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2006 based on the monthly log, then regenerate this list. The process is not fully automatic (the log files are not quite regular enough to automatically parse), so although it's mostly automated there is some manual effort involved. The next update will likely be this weekend (through June). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work

I've been listed in the file for Jan 2006 for some time, but I'm not showing up here. What's wrong? Rlevse 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Must be some problem with the scripts I'm using (maybe that line says "if user == Rlevse, then ignore this entry" :) ). I'll look into it. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Entries in the "by year" lists that don't have whitespace around the "||" table entry separators aren't currently parsed correctly. I'm working on a fix. Thanks very much for noticing this. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the script, and updated the list, and you are indeed there now. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks!! Rlevse 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Double counts?

Rick, am I correct in assuming that when people manually add themselves to this list after a successful nom they aren't counted again when you run your script? Marskell 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the script regenerates the entire table from scratch (from the "FA by year" lists). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the etiquette on adding manual entries? Is it alright to do as a temporary measure, until the next script update? Or is it better to hold off? --Elonka 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure; last time I did that, it removed them altogether. — Deckiller 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC

Can you add to your script so that it removes articles that appear at former featured articles? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to list former FAs in a different font color (or something), but I think removing them completely seems a little harsh. Successfully carrying an article through the FA process is an accomplishment, even if that article later degrades to the point (or standards change so) that it becomes a former featured. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe create a second list at the bottom of the page? It's just it skews the stats, even with separate colours, because people see "Oh, that guy's got 50 articles!" when actually, half have been defeatured. I think for the sake of statistics, a seperate list would be a good idea. But definitely on the same page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If someone has gone to the trouble of nominating 50 articles, I don't much care what happens to them later. Are you worried about someone habitually nominating "unworthy" articles that become featured and are then defeatured? I'm always willing to listen, but I don't think this is a problem worth worrying about. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - because effectively they haven't written an FA anymore. They've put a phenomenal amount of work into an article, true, but its not FA standard anymore. I think its obvious I'm using Lord Emsworth as my example here: the man has nominated over 50 FAs, which is an amazing achievement - but by the time whoever is nominating all his articles at FARC is done, he'll only have about twenty. So, if Lord Emsworth had nominated all his articles now, they would have failed. Yet he is still at the top of the list, which I feel is unfair to the people below who WOULD have passed their FAs if they were to nominate them now. However, the work he put in at the time was FA standard and so I think while this shouldn't be in the main list, it should recognised in a separate table. Different colours wouldn't work because I can't see the Featured stars anyway, just question marks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If an article got to FA, he still wrote an FA. Maybe he died and can't maintain it anymore. I support making them a different color.Rlevse 12:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The not so subtle point of this page is to help increase the number of featured articles by recognizing those users who take articles through the FA process. Lord Emsworth did not "game" the system or do anything remotely indicating he is undeserving of his exalted status on this page. I agree standards have changed, so some of the articles that became featured in the past would not pass now and have been nominated for review. I think it is appropriate to somehow indicate in this list articles that are no longer featured, but changing rankings seems much more unfair to me than continuing to count articles that are defeatured. Unless there is a community consensus that the list should be sorted by count of "currently featured" rather than successfully nominated, I think we should leave it the way it is.

The stars are the Unicode "black star" character, number 9733 (x2605). The help at Help:Multilingual support may be useful. A list of fonts including this character is at http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fontsbyrange.html#u2600. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse and Rick Block. There is no need to "erase history" by removing articles that aren't FAs any more. Doing so would fail to record interesting information like what users participated in the process, when they partcipated in the process, and how the nature of Featured Article subjects change as standards change. (For example, I'd still choose the FAs of the fellow who isn't here any more over much of what is now generated in FAC.) This page is helpful in showing how times change. –Outriggr § 03:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nov 2006

The Nov 2006 articles aren't being credited yet. For example, Wimvandorst shows 2, but has 3 with Lead(II) nitrate. Rlevse 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, under editor Piotrus, why is History of Solidarity a question mark?Rlevse 12:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just updated it. The History of Solidarity issue was because is was manually added that way, with this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I know it takes several days for the previous month, so I asked but Nov, but know Dec 2006 will need a little more time to show up.Rlevse 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Return to the STARS

Please! These box outlines are hare to see because they're so thin and they hurt my eyes! Aargh! Rlevse 10:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which versions are you talking about? Please post specific links. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me. This changing the colours of the stars won't work because I can't even see the stars, just a whole bunch of question marks. Is it possible to chnage the script so it doesn't use something lots of people have trouble seeing? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that your system cannot render these stars properly due to lack of a proper font. It would be useful if you gave me the breakdown on what OS and browser you're using, so that I could expand my answer. Until then, that's about the best I can offer you. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have Mozilla firefox on Xp, but it doesn't matter, the question marks have turned rust coloured. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting removals...

I know the idea of noting delisted articles has been mentioned previously, and I emphatically agree that this page should not post-hoc judge articles/nominators by removing stars, but in terms of usefulness might it be time for a different colour with delisted articles? I say this having worked a great deal at WP:FAR, where FAs are subject to review and removal. A few editors have informal lists of old FAs they're planning to send to FAR (Emsworth's are the obvious example); if delisted FAs are in red rather than blue, people could better browse those that are still FAs to see if they do in fact meet the criteria.

Note this isn't a "blow the star off" idea; some old ones get saved, some removed. It would just be nice to browse them more easily. Marskell 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I intend to come up with a way to indicate former FAs here (probably color), but haven't gotten around to it yet. This list is automatically generated from the by-year nomination lists, like Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2006, so step one is to indicate former FAs in these lists. Assuming somebody wants to do this, then step two (fairly simple) is to change the script that generates this page to recognize former FAs and change the star. It would also be possible to change the script that generates this page so that it automatically determines which articles are former FAs by looking at Wikipedia:Former featured articles (and Wikipedia:Featured articles), but that would be considerably harder than relying on an indication in the by-year lists. There does seem to be interest in this, so I'll think about the auto-detect sort of approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles listed in Wikipedia:former featured articles are now rust colored stars. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Detecting former FAs relies on the article name (before any "|" character) exactly matching between the by-year nomination lists (like Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2006) and Wikipedia:Former featured articles. I've spent some time fixing some, there may be more. If anyone notices any more, please either just fix it (probably edit the by-year list) or let me know. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Rick. I don't want to give you extra work if it's not something people will act on, but one other thing to think about is a way to flag those that have passed FAR since the new process was instituted there. It would allow people to see which old ones could use a review now and which have already been done. Marskell 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

order by current # of FAs excluding former FAs

would it be possible to order the list dufferently? ie instead of just doing "total number of FAs ever submitted", do "total number of FAs submitted that are currently FAs and have not been demoted from FA status". ie dont change anything, except the ordering. this would mean the total number of FAs would still be recognized and shown in the list, and the demoted FA info would still be there, but would also give an incentive to people to ensure their FAs keep FA status. (e.g. worldtraveller would go above raul654). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.251.102 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'd prefer not. Realistically, this list doesn't mean anything anyway and I don't think anyone should be using their "position" in this list for any purpose whatsoever (if anyone is, please let me know who and for what). If someone feels tremendously competitive about it my advice is to nominate more FAs (or relax). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The change to the rust colour answers the broad concern of differentiating removed from current FAs. It's not a contest—if it should be anything, it should be a tool which aids people browsing the FAs and tracking who can help with what. Marskell 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from user talk:Rick Block

Hi, I've got a wierd case for you about the Wikipedians by FA page - User:Cuivienen has 4 FAs, however 2 other stars link to the same article - The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. This is because the article was promoted, then demoted & then promoted again. My question is - is this allowed, fair etc? If not, can you remove it, as it seems a bit unfair that one person gets to be higher on the table due to a technicality like that... And yes, I'm that petty... ;) Thanks, Spawn Man 10:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how it currently works, and IMO it's fair enough. Here' my thinking:

1. You get a star for successfully nominating (or co-nominating) an article that becomes a FA. No one can or should ever take the star away from you, regardless of whether standards change in the future or the article degrades enough that it gets nominated at WP:FAR and demoted.
2. The star becomes rust colored if the article is currently WP:FFA. Note that you may or may not still be an active contributor, so whatever happened to cause the article to be demoted may be completely beyond your control.
3. If you or anyone else successfully renominates the article for FA, another star is awarded. Not to do this seems plainly unfair to the renominator, unless you think it's much easier to get a FFA to FA than any other article (if you think this, please try it).

Now, what should happen to the original star after a successful renom? Go away? I don't think so (per #1). Remain rusty? It isn't an FFA anymore, so I think it'd be pretty confusing to leave it rusty. If it simply looks like all the other FAs, a regular star means you successfully nominated this article and it's (currently) FA while a rusty star means it's currently FFA.

Can this be gamed? Sure, but I frankly don't care. You shouldn't either. If you think it's easier to get stars by getting FFA's repromoted, please do it. If you maliciously degrade current FAs so you can nominate them for WP:FAR and later fix them up so you can renominate them for FA to get a star, I urge you to seek professional psychiatric help. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• For example, Emsworth's articles were top grade back in 2004; taking away his stars because they don't meet modern standards would be an insult. — Deckiller 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't mean that at all - I meant if the same person renomed an article he had already gotten to FA. I never intended to sound as if I wanted the rusted stars to be taken away either lol. Anyway, get your point now, but stil a bit iffy for me... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone gets a star for a renom, why shouldn't an original nominator get one, too? I know it looks a little odd for one person to have two stars for the same article. My view is the star is not for the article but rather for the work involved in taking that article through FAC. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominations by the FA Director

Reading the list, I was thinking that some of Raul's nominations are actually re-listings of nominations he executed exercizing his role as FA Director (such as Hippocrates, Salvador Dali and others). I think that it is fair to mention that (maybe as a footnote, saying that this, this, and this nominations were re-listings by Raul of the initial nominations of this, this, and this user), and also to mention the names of the users who made the initial nominations. Because it is not exactly that these nominations were rejected. Raul himself, when relisting a FA nomination as FA director, says that he does that, because it was tough for him to determine consensus. And, after all, these are not "normal" nominations. They are nominations executed by Raul as a special status he has (FA Director), and not because of his special affiliation with these articles.--Yannismarou 10:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In cases where they've obviously been just relistings I've been attempting to list the original nominator(s) in the by-year lists. If there are other instances I haven't caught, please either let me know or just fix the appropriate by-year list. I'll ask Raul if he can spend some to review these as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Not mine: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Hope that helps. Raul654 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, that was very helpful indeed. Let me just add that these re-listings, are actually not typical "re-nominations", since in normal second nominations there exists also an archive of the previous nomination. For example, check:

• Ivan Alexander's 3d FAC and his FAC archives 1 and 2

vs

• original nomination for Salvador Dali which was not archived anywhere, apart from Raul's first comment when he archived it by simply deleting the text (first here), with the note "Restarting old nomination - many objections, most of which were addressed.".

Maybe the bot should search in the history of the page for the first edit, rather than finding the first user linked in the text after the deletion/archive by Raul? Thanks!Yannismarou 08:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial entries in the by-year lists are "bot assisted" (not done by a bot since the nominations aren't quite regular enough to reliably parse). A heuristic suggests likely nominators, but is only about 80% accurate. Looking in the history is possible, but most of these cases predate the current transclusion setup. I've manually fixed these. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This exists b/c...?

What is the point of listing Wikipedians by featured article nominations? « FMF » 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I created it as an alternative arena, somewhat less useless than Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, for highly competitive types to compete in. The percentage of articles that are featured has been declining (see Wikipedia:Featured article statistics). Articles don't get featured by themselves - nominating an article and responding to comments at WP:FAC can be somewhat of an ordeal. This list is meant to provide some encouragement to take articles through this process.

Why do you ask? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So this is for "encouragement"? I'm kind of discouraged because, despite a GAC, I wasn't ready yet (for a certain nomination), but still went along with it! I asked just out of curiosity really, since I got here by checking what linked to F-Zero GX.« FMF » 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

I just notice that my (user:M.K) nomination (House_of_Gediminas) is attached to other name user:M.K., please somebody fix this (I would do it manually by myself, but instruction says not). Thanks, M.K. 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The instruction is meant to say "edit the source, not this list". The source in this case is Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007 (and it's been fixed). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Old name/new name

My one solitary little star is even lonelier than it should be, as it's my second FA - the first was under my old username, User:Proto. Can this be resolved? Neil ☎ 14:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Like this. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I knew there would have been some cunning way to do it. Thanks Rick! Neil ☎ 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Elements FYI

Just an FYI. WikiProject Elements appears at the bottom of the list twice. Once with a period following the name and once without. KnightLago (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Number the entries?

Would it be possible to add # or something like that, to number all of the entries? Cirt (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

Sure it's possible (although not with #, since it's a table), but why? Do you want to know your ordinal position in this list? At 10 or less FAs there are so many ties, I'm not sure a 1-N ordinal number makes sense. I guess we could say Emsworth is 1, Hurricanehink, Piotrus, and Worldtraveller are all 2, Johnleemk is 5, etc. (sort of like a pro golf tournament). If you're looking for a "score" I think the number of FAs is as good as anything. I'm personally not very inclined to add a number, but if there's some sort of consensus that it would be worthwhile (or some really good reason I'm not seeing) it wouldn't be very hard to implement. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your words, from above:

I created it as an alternative arena, somewhat less useless than Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, for highly competitive types to compete in. The percentage of articles that are featured has been declining (see Wikipedia:Featured article statistics). Articles don't get featured by themselves - nominating an article and responding to comments at WP:FAC can be somewhat of an ordeal. This list is meant to provide some encouragement to take articles through this process.

This step would make this list more in-line with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, and it would also make it easier to see how many people are on the list with a quick glance. Perhaps there is a way to number all people with the same amount of FAs the same number, like a tie, and then start a new number for the next lowest amount of FAs down the list, and so on? Cirt (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

• I know you said you couldn't use # because it's a table, but the idea I mentioned might look like:

1. Fifteen articles

   Joe Schmo

   Jane Doe

2. Fourteen articles

   Sara Schmo

   John Doe, etc.

Just a thought, if people shoot it down, that's alright too. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

• Eh, just an idea. Nevermind, I like the page the way it is. Great work you do here. Cirt 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

Probably an odd request

I noticed that I was co-credited for Acrocanthosaurus with Sheep81. In all fairness, I didn't do much on this article, and it wasn't a co-nomination, so it should go to Sheep exclusively. J. Spencer 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. This edit will take care of it. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was that easy? Thank you! J. Spencer 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Shared star?

Eardwulf of Northumbria just got promoted to FA. I nominated it, but most of the work on the article itself was done by User:Angusmclellan. Angus also did a lot of the work on responding to the FAC issues. Can stars be shared? If not, I think this star ought to be listed under Angus's name. Mike Christie (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. It's done like this. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great; thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Displaying the stars

The stars display as stars on one computer I use, and as question marks on another. I assume I need to install some character set in some way. Does anyone know just what needs to be installed? I use Firefox, in case that makes a difference. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(repeat from above) The stars are the Unicode "black star" character, number 9733 (x2605). The help at Help:Multilingual support may be useful. A list of fonts including this character is at http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fontsbyrange.html#u2600. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2007

Rick, is it possible for the bot to generate a list of 2007 totals? We might hand out cookies to the top editors or something. Marskell (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is basically trivial, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I'll let you know when it's done. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2007. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is neat. Presumably it will have to be updated until there are no more FACs left that were nominated in 2007, correct? Is it also easy to list them by promotions date rather than nomination date? Based on a conversation with Marskell I think that would put Hurricanehink at the top for 2007. Anyway, thanks for putting this up. Mike Christie (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is by promotion date, not nomination date - ultimately corresponding to the FA logs (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log) although directly from the by-year summary at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007. Since it's by promotion date the tally is "final", subject only to corrections in the by-year nomination summary list (which are so rare I don't currently have the bot updating the newly created WBFAN-2007 list). It would be difficult to list them by nomination date. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Stars not displaying

There seems to be a lot of editors who have difficulty seeing the UTF star symbol, myself among them. Would it not make more sense to replace the text stars with the FA star image we already have? It would require only changing two lines in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/script (I think it's lines 85 and 90). If the ImageMap syntax is used, the links to the articles themselves can be preserved. I am not familiar with the language used in the script, but this is the syntax required:

<imagemap>
Image:Featured article star.svg|15px
default [[Articlename]]
desc none
</imagemap>

The newlines are required, and produces

For former featured articles, Image:Cscr-featured-strike.png could be used. Does this sound like a good idea? Happy‑melon 10:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't displaying almost two thousand images make the page display much more slowly, and make the load on the servers much greater? Or would the image be cached once for each display and then re-rendered each time? Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The image would be loaded once by a browser and I suspect the server load difference would not be noticeable (very slightly more since the whole page can currently be cached in the squid front ends - adding an image makes the browser fetch the page content from the squids plus fetch the image once), but the source text reference to the image is 60 bytes or so compared with the single utf-8 character (which is actually 3 bytes), so doing this would essentially double the source page text size from its current (not very small to start with) 122K. I don't know the HTML size of the page (also not small), but doing this would increase the HTML size as well (I think by at least 100K). I'd prefer not to do this.

Is the help at Help:Multilingual support not useful? A list of fonts including the star character is at http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fontsbyrange.html#u2600. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's not useful, but it didn't solve the problem for me. I'm an IT professional but I started to glaze over as I tried to figure out how to use that list of fonts to solve my problem. I know I didn't have to buy a font to make it work on my home machine, but my work machine doesn't display the star and I can't figure out what to do about it. What would be great would be a step-by-step guide to "how to install font X"; however, I haven't asked because it's really not a Wikipedia problem, it's a tech support problem. Still, if you know where such a guide lives that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added class="Unicode" to the table definition. Let me know if this improves things. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still see question-marks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

the right to opt out

..do wikipedians have the right to opt out of this list? They should. Really. 163.28.49.4 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It is a factual list, like the list of admins. If if bothers you, ignore it.--Doc^g 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The list is created from the content of the by-year summaries of the FA nomination archives, e.g. Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008. To "opt out", delete your name as the nominator in the corresponding summary list. On the other hand, every edit every user makes to Wikipedia is recorded (and public). If you have any problems with this you might be interested in Wikipedia:Right to vanish. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of this page

Shouldn't it be "List of Wikipedians by featured articles", not "featured article nominations"? BuddingJournalist 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The current title is somewhat misleading, but it isn't a list by FAs either, since it includes former FAs. It's really "List of Wikipedians by successful nominations of featured articles", but I don't think that's actually a clearer title, so I wouldn't suggest changing it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested something along the lines of "List of Wikipedians by promoted featured article nominations" a few days ago. Gary King (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Promoted featured articles" sounds kind of redundant to me (isn't a featured article by definition promoted?). Certainly anyone can create whatever redirect they'd like, but I'm not seeing a particularly good reason to move it. If the introductory text does not make it clear what the content is, please fix it. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Star columns

Could the number of columns possibly be increased so all the stars show on one line? Same goes for WP:WBFLN; WP:WBFTN, too, but it doesn't need it for now. It would be nice if all the stars for a single person was on one line, so then looking at the page can be like looking at a bar graph. Assuming the minimum screen width is 1024 pixels (which roughly 90% of users have, or more), then 40 stars can fit horizontally without requiring a scrollbar. Gary King (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor clarification - the star is actually a Unicode character, so the number that fit depends on both the pixel width of the browser window and the font size. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this has been here for weeks and there has been no more discussion... any new thoughts? Gary King (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It can't be optimized for everyone's browser at once, so I think it might as well be left as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. Gary King (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Counting number of noms resultis in inaccurate statistic

I have created or participated heavily in editing 5 articles that are now FA. But I only Nominated two of them, so the Bot says I only have 2. How can one fix that? Instead of counting nominators, why not count editors in the top two or three number of edits to each article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to me removing my name from this list?

I just discovered this page. I'm going to be bold and remove my name. My name was on that list because I did, in fact, nominate a successful featured article candidate (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metacomet Ridge) so technically -- but only technically -- my user name does belong there. I'm sure editors look on that list as a kind of honor roll of editors who have been largely responsible for writing those articles (having stars next to names doesn't help in that regard). As the wikilink I've just given you shows, Metacomet Ridge was largely User:Pgagnon999's doing, and so was the work of getting it through the feature-article process. The only reason I nominated it was because Pgagnon999 was to modest to do so (I suggested to him that the article was FA material and he indicated he wouldn't have a problem if I nominated it). Other than nominating, my work was negligable, both in the FA process and on the article. This was not something either of us was familiar with, and I had no idea my user name would be going on a list like that. I notice Pgagnon's name is also on that list (with one star; I'm not sure if that editor is getting credit for the Metacomet Ridge article/nomination or not).

If there are objections to me removing my name from the list, then a footnote should be put next to it to note that my role was primarily to nominate. Actually, I think a footnote would be kind of silly, but just a bit less silly than my name being on the list. The top of the list should also explain that not all nominators are the editors primarily responsible for either writing the articles or getting them through the FA process. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. A note on the main page says a bot updates this daily, so perhaps my name will return to the page. I'm contacting RickBot operator Rick Block about this. Noroton (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The stars are linked to the articles, so Pgagnon999's star is for Metacomet Ridge. The bot will not be running for a few days, but what it does is read the pages like WP:FA2008 and reconstruct this list from scratch from these pages (every time it runs). To remove yourself permanently you'd need to edit WP:FA2008. There's nothing terribly official about this, and if you feel under or over credited just fix the right source list. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I removed my name from the source list, mentioned it on that talk page. Noroton (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. BTW - I updated the intro text here as well to try to clarify it per your suggestion. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and consensus

OK then, let's graph it out. (PS Sorry to make it a vote but I figured this could get erm encyclopedic...).

I'd guess we are agreed that the current criteria for this page is noms plus occasional circumstances where a non-nommer is considered to have contributed a large proportion of the leg-work involved, and co-noms are allowed. Under these rules I have thus been credited vampire (with my >600 edits), and Sheep81 has been credited with Gorgosaurus, and there will be others. The idea is that it more accurately represents input into FA content. AFAICT there has been no official discussion on this before now.

Spawn Man proposes we stick more closely to strictly noms only. Question is, how does everyone feel? And do we allow co-noms? Any size minimum for co-noms? or what? Input below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep as current

i.e. a little bit of slack for extenuating circumstances/co-noms etc.

1. . (morally and not-uninvolvedly) I think it is a fairer reflection of contribution of aliquots of Featured content, but relies on good faith and can be gamed. where do we draw the line? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I'll go with this - I solve the problem (sort of) by putting stars on my user page not only for those which I nominated, but also those for two or three where I was the/a major contributor, but not a nom. jimfbleak (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Who gets the credit? The guy who makes 600 edits to an article, or the guy who puts his signature on a nomination? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
4. As I understand it, this is essentially the same as "recognise the collaborators", but I think the latter is a better statement of the principle involved here. Hesperian 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
5. I don't really like pulling names out of thin air, as it were, in the article body, but I'm okay with co-noms (I nominate articles basically only I've worked on usually, so it doesn't affect me one way or another besides making me work harder to stay up in the top 12 of WBFAN.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
6. If I have to weigh in, this is the place, but honestly, this is just silly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Strictly noms only

Need to clarify whether co-noms allowed/not allowed, if so, size minimum etc.

1. This page is for Featured Article Nominations, not "and other people who think they're entitled". Either change the title or start making the inclusion grounds simpler. Otherwise it'll take too long to discern who else qualifies or not. Spawn Man (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Exactly right, it's called Featured Article Nominations, which means nominating an article that is close to or meets the criteria. Now in the case of a drive-by nom, how did the article get to that status? By the person who worked on it? Why shouldn't they get credit? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 10:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognise the Collaborators

Basically a subset of Keep as current but since this is a collaborative effort by many people, just include all those who wish to be acknowledged for their efforts with the article. It doesnt matter how big or small their contribution was it the end result that counts, nobody owns the articles anyway.

1. Gnangarra 09:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Hesperian 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow nominators to opt out

Another way of being fair is to allow nominators to be excluded from counts here.

1. Shyamal (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Implied by "recognise the collaborators". Hesperian 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is against the spirit intended of the page

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-14/Dispatches. Sorry, most of this is WP:TLDR, but some people are taking the purpose of this page way overboard. That's all I have to say (and I watch every addition made to the page to make sure they make sense, and I sometimes add contributors who should have been listed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cas Liber and Vampire:

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but why is User:casliber given credit for the Vampire article's nomination - he did do a lot of work on the article, but I nominated it as we had planned, so he shouldn't get a star for it... (Yes, I'm a big, realist meany...) I tried fixing it, but that darn rick bot reverted my edits. Can someone fix this, and if not, why is this happening...? Cheers and sorry to be a joy germ... Spawn Man (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot regenerates this page from the by-year lists, list WP:FA2008. If you fix it there, it says fixed. There, it appears both you and Casliber are given credit for Vampire (and reading the nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2008 it sounds like a joint nom). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait - so how do I fix it? At that page it looks as if cas only gives his support and says he did over 500 edits... Spawn Man (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't fix it; it's not broken. This page is much more useful if it records the people who made the FA happen, rather than solely the person who happened to nominate it. Hesperian 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)That's not exactly fair though really - he didn't co-nom, he knew he wouldn't get credit, and I nominated. We were going to do vice versa with the next article, with me having no credit etc etc. I'd like it changed for the sake of thoroughness, because I don't get any credit for any of the numerous articles I've helped get to FA. I don't mean to complain, but my mind warps when things are out of order. :P Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think you deserve credit for some of these FAs, then add your name to them. Hesperian 02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that but then we would have to change it because at the moment it goes by the nominator. Also with joint noms it's already affecting it because if people want, they can deliberately edit in duets or trios and get 2/3 times as many stars, if that's how they operate. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice the same thing happens with the Gorgosaurus FA, where Cas noms it, yet User:Sheep81 gets a star also, although cas only mentions his name in the nom saying that the dinosaur project used him to help write the article, far from a nomination, or even a con-nom. If this is the case that I only spotted by chance, how many other stars are there that aren't supposed to be? I think your bot script needs rewriting Rick... Spawn Man (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably somebody retrospectively added Sheep to Rick's roster. Because AFAIK the bot reads the initial FAC and then after that people can manually tweak it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) obviously there are no easy answers - the page is either very strictly according to noms, in which case there are instances of folks putting in more work to articles than the eventual nominator, and the big questionmark over where and how co-noms fit into this, and many (if not most) key core articles are collaborative...I was musing about this with major depressive disorder which a few of us are bringing expertise to, or do you have it somewhat looser, as evidenced by mine and Sheep's names being on for articles we didn't nominate...but in that case where does one draw the line? I don't know, personally I favour the latter as the work required for vampire, lion or some other complex ones was alot more than for simpler ones, and I think it is a fairer reflection of contribution of aliquots of Featured content. Admittedly I get an extra star or two that way so I am not neutral/'uninvolved'...but..I dunno...I feel rather sheepish making an issue of this somehow (shuffles feet and looks at floor). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution is to allow people to claim whatsoever articles they feel responsible for. This is an inequitable solution, but so is counting by nominator, as is counting edit count, as is virtually every other measure of achievement you can imagine. The equity issue can be managed by liberal application of don't-give-a-fuckism. Here's how it works:

I take an article to FA, with a bit of help from Cas. Cas takes an article to FA, with a bit of help from me. Cas only claims one of the two articles, but I claim them both. That's not fair. Cas doesn't give a fuck. Problem solved.

Hesperian 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As to how it works - I run the bot manually. It scans the nom archive and makes a guess who the nominator is. I decide when I run it if it got the nom(s) correct (sometimes the bot's guess is simply wildly incorrect and I fix it, and sometimes I add co-noms). Then the bot updates the by-year page, like WP:FA2008, adding any new entries. If subsequent changes are made to these pages (the by-year summaries) the bot doesn't mind - i.e. the bot only adds entries, never "fixes" existing entries (well, except for article name changes). Then, as a last step, the bot reads all of the by-year summaries, recreates the entire WBFAN table (completely ignoring the current table in WBFAN), and writes the new table into the page. To change what shows up in this table, change the by-year summary. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot is irrelevant, because it is policy-neutral (which is A Good Thing). Hesperian 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems weird to me that something as simple as going by nominator only is hard to do; if it's a specified co-nom and neither party "gives a fuck", then by all means, give both a star. However, this occasion is nought from two. I'm not only speaking for me, but for the other people below Cas etc - some people really do take this page seriously as a guide to merit (I know I certainly do) and I'd be a little pissed off if there were several people above me who were only above me due to the fact that someone mentioned them in a nom and the bot added a star to them. I don't want to take away from Cas' involvement, but we had already decided it wasn't a co-nom and I'm sure Cas didn't ask Sheep81 to co-nom either (using only two examples, I'm sure I could find more...). I don't like complaining about a merit system, so let's just fix it and move on. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are suffering under the delusion that the number of nominations made is a reasonable "guide to merit". Review sections #Wow, #Shared star?, #Counting number of noms resultis in inaccurate statistic and #Any objections to me removing my name from this list? above. Each of those sections presents an example where counting contributors other than the nominator improved (or would improve) the usefulness of this list as a "guide to merit". Hesperian 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And to imply that Cas only got a star for Vampire "due to the fact that someone mentioned them in a nom" is horribly misleading, considering he has made 635 edits to that page, and you only 382. Hesperian 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, this is just a light discussion - no need to get personal and call me delusional. Number of nominations is not a fair guide to merit, but successful ones are - otherwise why would we have a page for it. I'm not saying that it's the be all and end all of merit, bht it certainly is a good judge for this side of things. And yes, thanks for pointing out Cas made more edits than me - I'm not saying anything, but my edits were more longer ones, while I know Cas prefers the several edits style. And I wasn't refering to that nomination, but the Gorgosaurus nomination, where Cas mentions Sheep in his nomination, so you are mistaken in which one I was taking about. Cheers Hesperian. Spawn Man (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've pointed you at four sections above that provide a powerful argument against your premise that "number of successful nomination are a fair guide to merit"; your response is that it must be, "otherwise why would we have a page for it". You're going to have to do much better than that, especially since the whole point of this discussion is how this page is best defined. You argument is "this page is for successful nominations; whatever this page does is what this page should do; therefore this page should be for successful nomination." Focus, Spawnman, focus! Hesperian 05:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone also mentioned that they added someone else's name because they felt they deserved it - I certainly don't want my name being placed somewhere by anyone other than myself even if it does give me more credit for things. It's just not considerate and are we really doing that now, letting other people put our names places? Spawn Man (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to review the dictionary definition of "considerate". It may be misguided or inappropriate, in your opinion, but it is an inherently considerate act. Hesperian 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Placing someone else's name on a page without their consent even if it is in good faith is not considerate IMHO. Asking them first would be, but if there is no policy against this kind of thing, I suggest we make that only the nominator(s) receive merit for the nomination to put a stop to people being "considerate". Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't reviewed the dictionary definition of "considerate". Hesperian 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to look it up but I didn't know how to spell dikshunary to look it up. :P Okay, considerate is "Careful not to cause inconvenience or hurt to others. Showing careful thought." - As I said, it's good-willed to put someone else's name on a page, but it's not considerate in the absence of asking them because it may cause them "hurt" or "inconvenience". Who knows, some troll may place someone's name on a gay or lesbian article nomination in a personal attack, and with the current fail safes, it would go unnoticed. Minor, but still, it should be methodic and absolute the guidelines for giving merit on this page. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this straight: it was inconsiderate of me to do something that meets the dictionary definition of "considerate", because it would have been inconsiderate if I'd actually done something else that doesn't meet the dictionary definition of "considerate". Are you sure you've thought this through? Hesperian 05:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about Hesperian? - I never once mentioned your name. My comments on Cas liber's talk page are completely unrelated to the example I gave here. I apologize if you got that impression, but still, that's no reason for your uncivil comments above. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference. Your argument is:

Premise: If a troll puts someone's name on a gay or lesbian article nomination, that would be inconsiderate.

Premise: If a troll puts someone's name on a gay or lesbian article nomination, that would be an example of someone putting someone else's name on a nomination.

Conclusion: It is inconsiderate to put someone else' name on a nomination.

That ain't right. Hesperian 05:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And based on this series of contribution by Sheep81 to Gorgosaurus, in which about half of the article was laid down, the assertion that Sheep81 only got a star "due to the fact that someone mentioned them in a nom" is pretty hard to sustain. Hesperian 05:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True, it does sound a bit weird doesn't it? My points are: 1, No one should be able to place someone else's name on any page other than that person (Unless it's in an instance such as RfA etc). 2, Unless it's a specified co-nom, the star should be given to the nominator to avoid confusion and angst over sharing a piece of the pie. 3, people do interpret this page as a source of merit in regard to successful featured article nominations, and allowing people to bump themselves or others up or down regardless of the nomination situation is somewhat unfair to others. 4, Inconsiderate is just a word and no one really cares about this discussion, so let's just be calm Hesperian and nay saying for the sake of it and let's resolve the situation.

What about Hesperian, if you spent 500 edits getting an article to FA and you feel good. However, another editor spends just as many edits doing half as much leg work, (fixing typos grammar etc) and places his name on the list because he feels entitled etc and you're not okay with it. That shouldn't be allowed because you're the nom. That's the best I could come up with in an example, and I suppose you'll disagree with it because obviously I'm the only one who minds people taking credit for nominations which weren't theirs. Spawn Man (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But I would be okay with it; in fact, I wouldn't give a fuck. Because obviously I'm the only one who minds nominators taking credit for articles they didn't write. Hesperian 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And as for "the star should be given to the nominator to avoid confusion and angst over sharing a piece of the pie", I have personally witnessed someone throwing a shameful tantrum because someone else made a nomination that they wanted to make. Giving all the credit to the nominator didn't avoid angst on that occasion, no-sirree-Bob. On the contrary, a lot of angst would have been avoided if the credit didn't falsely accrue to the nominator alone. (Do you know who I'm talking about?) Hesperian 06:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Then brilliant, we're in agreement - because don't want someone putting their name to a nomination which wasn't theirs then eh? Unless, you're saying that I didn't write vampire? Sure Cas made more edits, but if you bothered to check the actual changes made (you've researched everything else - I'm almost surprised...) then you'd see the paragraphs and hours I put into the article. Heck, I left wikipedia over it. I'd appreciate if you didn't get personal Hesperian with your passive-aggressive comments, otherwise this discussion will be continuing in a different forum. My only goal is not to point out semantics, but to make sure people don't abuse the system and that fairness is in order on this page. Me and cas are good friends, so nothing you say will make the other feel wronged. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You say you want "fairness", but apparently you think people should be rewarded for the trivial procedural act of nominating an article, rather than for the effort of writing the article.

I must say I find that your ongoing baseless accusations of incivility, and now your vague threats, make for a rather hostile environment in which to conduct this discussion. Do you think, having now accused me of incivility or hostility seven times (here and on my talk page), threatened me with escalation to "a different forum" once, and hinted once that I'm trying to drive a wedge between you and Cas, you might consider your quota of ad hominem arguments exhausted for the day, and instead focus on producing a cogent rationale for your position?

Hesperian 06:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you should do the same and stop basing your arguments on your personal opinion of me. You have been very passive-aggressive towards myself. This page is for successful article nominations - if the person did not nominate the article - regardless of their contribution - then they should not be attributed. Otherwise, the principles deny the page's very title. Stop trying to make out that I'm being unreasonable with my suggestions to remain civil - for both of us - and actually take notice of them. You're coming across to me as a very aggressive person who seems to get rattled by benign issues such as this. It's making this whole experience very unpleasant for me, as you have not listened to my arguments at all, instead replying with passive aggressive attacks and comments which are generally off-topic. How about we let other people comment on the issue, as I'd hate this to look like we were fighting over a gold star. ; ) Just relax and let's get underway making this page better. You can't rattle me, so don't even try - I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(sits back, munches popcorn) ok then, if this page should be strictly noms only SM, what about co-noms? I never thought of them before.. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I always love your humour cas. : ) I don't blame you for not wanting to scroll up through the miles of rambling up there, but I had said that only noms and specified co-noms should be allowed. What happened in our case was my nom, and your name added afterward. If I'd said, "Cas is co-noming" and then you made your own statement, then that'd be different. I have no issue with that kind of co-nom - my issue is with names being added to nominations not specified as co-noms. It just makes everything easier, as discerning what justifies a reasonable amount of contribution to allow inclusion just adds a new level of pain to the process. For example, I edited the Jewellery article one time with material I'd written off-site, yet in about 10 edits, I'd expanded the page ten-fold. However, with so few edits, would that merit name inclusion should a nom arise from someone who'd done several hundred spelling corrections on that article? And vice versa too - should the person with hundreds of minor edits be allowed to take credit as well if the other person nominated? What I'm getting at, is that if you have to spend this much time deliberating each individual case, then it will simply drive everyone insane. There's a simple, and logical, answer - only attribute the merit to those who nominate, or those who clearly co-nominate, and make that all. Saves everyone time and anyway, people who don't contribute to articles usually don't suddenly nominate them for FAC when someone else is clearly working on them. Come on, it's just common sense - it gets rid of people putting their own and other people's name to pages where they don't belong and makes everything a lot easier. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<insert predictable cranky and somewhat elliptic remark by Ling.Nut> I have been watching forums for a while-ish while now. I have been the (mostly repentant) wellspring of more than one argument over nothing that escalated into hair-pulling. I have come to a conclusion: Wikipedia is Broken in Many Ways. And It Just Ain't Right. But Whatever 'cause there's Nothing We Can Do. But Whatever 'cause people argue about it all anyhow. Then the argument peters out with either no solution, or a wholly unsatisfactory one. Then the argument lies fallow a month or six. Then the argument is picked up again, largely with a new cast of characters, who largely have no flipping idea that their words have largely been typed previously by other editors (some of whom may be large). Lather, rinse, repeat. Your Mileage May Vary. I think Apathy (which on wikipedia is labeled WP:DGAF) is indeed the only sane response. :-) <cranky elliptic> Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap - that's the smartest thing anyone's said all day. You're my new idol... : ) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap—someone actually read what I typed! ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hours after I found this thread, I'm still stunned that it exists. Spawn Man, why should you be concerned if Cas liber is included on Vampire? Consider the articlestats for Vampire:

Casliber 636 444 69.8% 09/06/2007 06:39 09/10/2008 14:01 13:59 h

Spawn Man 382 143 37.4% 09/06/2007 09:37 03/12/2008 06:04 11:50 h

DreamGuy 153 33 21.6% 04/16/2005 04:46 08/16/2008 23:56 8.0 d

Magore 106

Casliber not only has worked on this article as long as you have, but he continues to maintain it, while you haven't edited since March. I'm struggling to understand why this matter has spawned an entire discussion and "vote", where the editcountitis took over, and how this thread contributes to a spirit of collaborative editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was using that instance as an example of what was happening on the page. Cas knows I worked just as hard on that article, and I haven't edited it because I left wikpedia- people tend not to edit too much when they leave eh? Okay, so if we keep the whole "whoever thinks they've done enough can put their name down despite this page says it's on it for nominations not anything else", then absolutely the placing other people's names down without asking them has to stop. If you did it anywhere else, they'd be reported. Good willed or not, the person should be asked before anyone uses their name. The fact that this page allows that is unbelievable. Spawn Man (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Plea for selflessness

I'd like to beg people to remember that we're not writing for ourselves—non nobis solum—but rather to bring something great into the world: a high-quality, well-written, free encyclopedia. To me, that says we should be selfless, writing because it is good and noble, don't you agree? If we were doing it for ourselves, we would write under our own names, no? Who are Casliber and Spawn Man and Willow? We're just empty names, and our glories here don't mean anything; in a very real sense, we don't even exist.

So I don't think it matters who's listed here for which article. And I don't think it's feasible to judge, automatically or by humans, who deserves credit for an article taken as a whole; it's too complicated to weigh the value of every contribution. Anyone who really cares can review the article's history and see exactly who added any particular part or wording. Like God and the falling sparrow, not a comma is added but the database knows it. The star added to Casliber doesn't take away from the star added to Spawn Man, right? I don't think we should fight over this, or more generally over credit for articles. We have greater challenges ahead of us, such as bringing the remaining 2 million-some articles up to FA- or GA-level.

If it's any comfort, I took my name from two FAs that I contributed to (Emmy Noether and Joseph Johnson (publisher)) earlier this summer, demoting myself from seven to five FA's. I don't know how I got added to that list, since I didn't nominate the articles, but I didn't deserve the recognition. I also didn't ask for recognition for the FAR of Action potential, where I've made roughly 7 times as many edits as anyone else and where almost every word was contributed by me. So you see, it's possible to know that you've done well and be satisfied in your contributions, even if you don't get a little black star for it, or if someone else gets one as well, right? We carry our best and truest treasures within, not pasted on a webpage, don't you agree?

Please, this doesn't matter enough to worry about. Let's go back to being friends and helping each other make a wonderful encyclopedia! :) Willow (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuck that! I'm going to get to the top of WP:WBFAN, hurricanes or co-nominations be damned! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not on my or that guy's watch... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So there you have it :-) Some don't care about the page, while for some it's a motivating factor in churning out more FAs, and this section seems to best sum up everything we need to know about this page, similar to what Rick Block said in the Dispatch. But seriously, fighting over whose name goes on a nom is just silliness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have my motives wrong - I don't blame them, I've been away for ages and my writing style needs refreshing - my main goal was to get everyone to assess the inclusion criteria for this page; the page states only article nominations and there is also no formal inclusion criteria to discern who qualifies. I couldn't care less if Cas gets a star also for the vampire article, or Sheep for the gorgosaurus article - I saw an inconsistency and thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. The far more alarming situation, like in Willow's case above, is that someone can simply place someone else's name on a page without their consent - Willow had to remove her name. Willow stated my thoughts exactly above in her well thought-out post (Although I think Cas Liber is his real name...) - no one cares less about this than me and I'm quite amused at the passion everyone has participated with. So yeah, I wasn't meaning to be nit-picky, only to address some minor issues on the page. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(lighthearted and merry) Thanks so much for your great letter, Spawn Man! It's a relief to hear that it doesn't trouble you personally. I didn't think it would, from my acquaintance with you and knowing your many contributions to Wikipedia, but sometimes even I get cranky if I've drunk too much coffee. :P But I'm not really alarmed by my undeserved stars, since I'm sure that whoever added me had only kind intentions. :) I don't think that such extraordinary nominations will become, you know, ordinary, and anyway they can always be amended. As an aside, I'm delighted that I can work all day on a fun and fluffy romance novel and still be mistaken for a man! :D Maybe it's silly, and maybe you won't sympathize, but it gives me hope for civilization. :) Smiling Willow (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(out) I believe I've consistently recommended that anyone who feels slighted add him- or herself to the appropriate by-year summary page (e.g. WP:FA2008) which is the "permanent" record that is reflected here. On the flip side, if you feel offended by someone else's "undeserved" star, either simply get over it or talk to them about it and edit the by-year summary page accordingly. Perhaps we should add a disclaimer along the lines of:

This page is fundamentally an amusement - treating it as anything else is symptomatic of serious psychological issues (see editcountitis). Seek professional help.

The only prize available here is a fundamentally worthless recognition for working on getting articles all the way through the FA process. Given this, I'd rather err on the over-generous than under-generous side. It's a wiki, so you can flat out cheat if you want. But it's a wiki, so if you do someone else will probably call you on it. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(shivers up spine) I know, even discussing this seems...icky. :P Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful disclaimer. An example of the issues: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices. Nine nominators listed, the article was featured because of the efforts of Malleus Faturoum, who refused a listing on this page even though he had more contributions than most of the nominators, and the article wasn't looking like featured status would be attained until Malleus got involved. That should explain the issues with editors who misunderstand or misuse this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that an easy answer in a case such as that would be to ask each individual that worked significantly on the article if they want their name listed as a nominator, and in turn here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really necessary; whenever I notice that a really significant contributor was left out, I inquire why they weren't included on the nom, and there have been occasions when I've added them to the page that generates this page. The exceptions are few and far between; this tempest in a teapot is unnecessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "List of Wikipedians by featured articles"

There would seem to be universal-minus-one agreement, and the one is now prevaricating on whether he even disagreed in the first place. I think it is safe to declare consensus.

I now propose that we rename this page "List of Wikipedians by featured articles". The current title has previously been challenged as incorrect because it implies all nominations, whether successful or not; and now it has led to the false impression that only nominators are to be counted. Way up this page, Rick says that only he named it "nominations" because he wanted to include former featured articles; but I don't see any problem with including former featured articles under a "by featured articles" title. Hesperian 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we count FFA's, exactly? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-14/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-25/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose I should be slightly embarrassed that the answer to my question is in the interviews I conducted, but then I wouldn't be a moron :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)I don't mind if we change the criteria, or the name, or get rid of the page, or leave it as it stands. However, I think it's worth mentioning that until relatively recently (I think about the last year or eighteen months) it was apparently fairly common for people to nominate articles they had not worked on. In the early days, I gather, the idea was that editor A would bring an article up to a high standard, and editor B would notice and nominate it. It would have been inappropriate and self-serving for someone to regularly nominate their "own" articles. There was a vestige of this in the FA instructions until recently, which used to ask self-nominations to declare as such -- clearly this is out of sync with the idea that only the article's editors are likely to nominate. This list hence does not record the work of those who made an article FA-quality, it records the work of those who successfully negotiated FAC, and until relatively recently these were different things. As time goes on they are converging more and more, of course, but they're not the same. So I'd say that the proposed name change would be inaccurate and I don't see any likelihood of accurately recording who did the work on the article anyway; edit counts won't always tell you, certainly. If I have to have a list, I like the idea of a list that shows who successfully navigated FAC. As part of the process of preparing for a nom, I think often a group of several editors does a lot of work and it's fine to cocredit them, even if they don't conom. But trying to put more definition around this doesn't really seem worth it to me. (Post edit conflict):DWF, the reason we count FFAs is because it's the nomination that is credited, and that happened regardless of the later fate of the article. Mike Christie (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of that; many of the older articles listed were by who nominated, not who worked on, see nothing wrong with the status quo here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Hesperian in regard to the name change; I don't see any problems with anything if we were to change the name. Spawn Man (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a list by (number of) featured articles, which IMO strongly implies writing, but rather a list by (number of) nominations. There's a pedantic argument that it should be "by successful featured article nominations". There's an equally pedantic argument that an article that is nominated isn't a featured article unless the nomination was successful, i.e. the title as it is already distinguishes this list from a hypothetical list "by featured article candidate nominations" (which would presumably include both successful and unsuccessful nominations). If it's going to have "nomination" in the title, is the current title good enough? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a side question, I wouldn't want to increase your workload, but could you make a side list showing only current FA's? The HurricaneHink can have his precious number one spot :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support that idea; again, it takes this page beyond what intended. Anyone can do the math, we don't need to promote pedantic interpretations of this page, and we certainly don't want to unwittingly promote the notion of defeaturing articles to change someone's position on the list. I lament that this conversation ever started; I support the page in its current form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone so passionate about this discussion? Lament? I mean really, I started this discussion off to point out some inconsistencies and if you think it's pointless, then don't participate. It really does just get in the way of finding a solution. I agree with Sandy that adding a current list will add a whole new level of hurt to the list. In fact, I was only trying to reduce workload by stopping people from adding their or other's names so that others wouldn't have to sort through and discern the truth from the fake. Rick; as it stands, the title sounds as if the list chronicles failed and successful featured article nominations and only showing nominators, possibly misleading when non-nominators are allowed too. Possibly adding either "successful" before featured or just changing it to "by featured articles" cost accommodate everything, although then we get into the argument of that no one can own an article and therefore it can't really be there's. Also, if we allow people to add their names without nominating, is it considered to be permanent or temporary (for example if they no longer contribute to the article, are they removed?). And say an article is featured, and then someone say does 200 edits to it afterwards, will they be added to the list or is it only for the people who helped before the article was featured, and if not, if we're on the moral highground here, that seems a tad unfair. And how far before the article is featured will contributors receive merit? If someone edits the article 2 years before FAC yet makes everlasting improvement to the article, shouldn't they be included? And if so, who is going to take on the workload? Sorry, but just a few questions which need addressing... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions appear to be rooted in a belief that there's something unfair about how the page is currently operating and you want strict (not quite the right word) rules for who is and is not listed presumably to make it more "fair". From my point of view, the current operation is explicitly meant to be fair - and anyone who disagrees can easily fix anything they disagree with (by editing the relevant by-year list). The name is well established, and the content is explained in the lead. Moving the page to add "successful" seems hardly worth the effort. Answering your questions:

If we allow people to add their names without nominating, is it considered to be permanent or temporary (for example if they no longer contribute to the article, are they removed?).

In the sense you're asking, permanent. The intent is to recognize the work involved in getting the article through the FAC process, specifically including the mechanics of FAC and responding to the suggestions raised during the FAC process.

And say an article is featured, and then someone say does 200 edits to it afterwards, will they be added to the list or is it only for the people who helped before the article was featured, and if not, if we're on the moral highground here, that seems a tad unfair.

200 edits after it's nominated in response to concerns raised during the FAC? In this case I don't think anyone would object to such a person being added as a co-nom. 200 edits after the article is promoted - no. The point of this list is to encourage folks to work on getting articles to FA. Working on articles before or after they're FA is not what this list recognizes. I would not be adverse to a "FARC saves" list, but I'm not sure how such a list could be automated.

And how far before the article is featured will contributors receive merit?

As far before as anyone wants, although the intent is effort fairly directly related to the FAC. Again, if you feel slighted add yourself as a co-nom. If you think someone else has been slighted, add them as a co-nom. As far as I know, no one checks up on after the fact edits to the by-year summary lists.

If someone edits the article 2 years before FAC yet makes everlasting improvement to the article, shouldn't they be included? And if so, who is going to take on the workload?

If someone writes 100 FA-caliber articles but nominates none of them and never participates in the FAC process I'd say they shouldn't be on this list. On the hand, if you think such a person warrants "credit" as a co-nom then by all means add them.

You question why folks are so passionate about this, but by continuing to pursue changes to how it works you seem to be one of the people who are passionate about it. I'm lazy (well, actually more like busy). I don't want to change the tool unless there's some problem we're fixing. Is it currently "fair"? I think it's plenty fair enough and there are mechanisms in place to correct any semblance of unfairness. What problem are we trying to fix? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rick for those answers. I don't think the page is unfair, just flawed because it left so many of the above questions open. Now that they've been explained, I have a better understanding of the page (although maybe posting a set of guidelines somewhere to protect against misuse would still be good). Thanks Rick for being one of the few here who answered my questions calmly, professionally without getting personal, and informatively. I don't think you're lazy and think you do quite a good job on wikipedia. As it is now, with my questions answered, I think I can let the matter be an use the page according to the out comes of the discussion here, which I was unsure of before. If you're fine taking the extra workload of up-keeping the page as is Rick, as long as it's fair, it's fine with me. Cheers all, but now I have actual article writing to do. ; ) Spawn Man (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot temporarily offline

The bot that normally maintains this page (Rick Bot) will be offline for about a week due to hardware problems but will resume its normal activities after the hardware's fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot's back. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Color

Maybe it's just me but the "rust" looks too similar to that of a red link, giving a rather negative first impression… — CharlotteWebb 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How about if it's hollowed out, like this ☆? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A hollow link like ★ and ✩, both blue would be fine (except the default font is reluctant to show me any two star symbols at the same size and shape). Maybe using a different solid color for the former FA's, anything other than red which implies deletion. Grey maybe. — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the hollowed out red star (is softer), but I think red is useful because its self explanatory. I don't think 'deleted' would be normal interpretation. Grey might be a good option too. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But there is a semantic difference between "former featured articles" and "featured former articles", red links being more typically associated with the latter. I know I needed a quick sanity check when I first saw this page yesterday. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. But I think the hollow star is distinctive enough to loose the association with ADF? Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What about just making the hollow stars blue and leaving that as FFA? If the issue is that red = redlink in people's minds, then the icons should stay blue no matter what. But the difference between the stars is easily recognizeable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That brings up the question. Why mention former featured articles, at all? JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the issue of apples and oranges. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Because those editors wrote featured articles. Consider Emsworth, who wrote a gazillion of them before he left and before standards changed, causing them to be defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jon: I posed that to Rick a while back, and while my memory is spotty I think it boiled down to 'recognizing old contributors' (so spake Sandy) and 'lots of work to remove stars'. Yeah, I'd like it without stars so I could move to #4 on the list instead of #6, but we can't all get what we want :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk)

It works as a great motivational tool, that's for sure. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've run an update replacing the rust colored stars with hollow blue stars (actually, they're whatever color links are, so they'll change based on whether you've visited the link as well). Let me know what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, it's up to everyone else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, well, it's a good thing I'm seeing an eye surgeon on Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, it looks much better now. I hadn't really thought that the red implied that they could be "featured former articles" but after it was brought up above, I think that was a reasonable assumption. The way it is now should hopefully clear that up. Gary King (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, much better now. Clever solution. Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delisted FAs

I think this gives a misleading impression of the number of FAs on the list. I think a delisted FA should be removed, not discoloured. I currently have the same featured article listed twice on my count, because that article was delisted and then re-featured. Not that I don't appreciate the added jump in stats, but it feels a bit like cheating. If delisted FAs were removed, then only re-featured FA would be counted. Serendi^podous 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely loathe to taking anyone's stars away at least in part because some of the folks on this list no longer edit here at all. How fair would it be to take their stars away because the rest of us can't manage to keep "their" articles up to current FA standards? I would absolutely love it if every delisted article was reworked and renom'd. If you think this is less work than an "original" nom, I say go for it. The consequence of this is that if you are both the original nominator and the renominator for the same article you get two stars. It's only cheating if you decided to let "your" article slide to the point that it was FARC'd and did nothing to improve it until after it was delisted. Even if someone were to do this, I don't really care - I mean the stars are free. Anyone gaming the system has to be working on getting articles to FA standards. Game away. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing writers rather than nominators?

Would it make more sense to list the writers of FAs, rather than the nominators? Sometimes nominators have had little or nothing to do with writing. I don't know whether that happens a lot, but I don't think it's that infrequent; perhaps if it is, someone who knows can tell me.

I'm thinking instead that people could add FAs to their names if they feel they made a substantial contribution to them, with the stress on "substantial." Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually watch for those and ask them independently if they want to be added (they usually decline), so I don't think we're missing many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there many nominators nowadays who nominate without contributing that much, do you know? I know there used to be, but I've not kept up with FA recently. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As primary nominator, these days, almost never. What we do see (but rarely) is lists of numerous collaborators, some of whom have negligible contributions (for a rare example, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices). Generally, though, we're seeing the main author as the nominator, or several authors as co-noms (all getting credit here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Table format tweak

Anyone care if I change the table formatting so that it ends up like this (first few lines in proposed format)?

User	Articles
Emsworth	☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Hurricanehink	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
YellowMonkey	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Awadewit	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

The point is that in this format the number of stars per line is dependent on the browser's window width (make your browser window wider or narrower to see what I mean) rather than fixed 20 stars per line, and I think will make the download size (number of bytes of HTML source transmitted to your browser) substantially smaller. It makes the exact count a little harder to figure out and will make the table nearly impossible to manually edit, but I'll bet most folks didn't know it was 20 stars per line and no one should be manually editing it. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But that makes it harder for me to see how many FAs my enemies—I mean, my fellow top editors—have :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your summary asks if loading is a big deal. I'd say no, and that's not the primary point (and actually looking at what's currently downloaded I see it's somewhat more than 383K - so reducing that by perhaps 10K really wouldn't be significant). This would address a comment raised a while ago, see Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/Archive 1#Star columns. I'm not terribly serious (and haven't tried this in anything except Firefox on a Mac), but to make them easier to count if there's more than 10 I could put each 10 in a {{nobr}} (padded with em spaces!) and add a few non-breaking spaces between each group making them appear in groups of 10, with an even multiple of 10 per line (but how many depending on the browser window width), like this:

User	Articles
Emsworth	☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★   ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★   ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ★   ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★   ☆ ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★   ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Hurricanehink	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★
YellowMonkey	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Awadewit	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

This will likely look very odd to anyone not using a font with a Unicode em space character (although it was an amusing exercise in "is it possible?"). A slightly less silly but not quite as pretty alternative is to add non-breaking spaces every 10 and let the line break fall where it may, like this:

User	Articles
Emsworth	☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★   ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★   ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ★ ★   ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★   ☆ ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ★   ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Hurricanehink	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★
YellowMonkey	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Awadewit	★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Overall, I think this last version is probably the most reasonable. Any objections or does anyone strongly prefer the current format (not changing it clearly takes the least effort)? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly, the blocked sections takes care of my only consideration. Do what you will. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting based on current FAs in cases of ties

I know the reasons why we sort things based on total historical successful noms. I'm fine with that. But shouldn't we sort tied total noms based on current FAs? Let me explain: ALoan (11 noms) has sadly left the project and several of his FAs have been FARCd. But he is still listed at the top of the 11 nom sublist solely b/c his user name starts with an A. Shouldn't that sublist be sorted by current FAs before being sorted alphabetically? --mav (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very sensible. I agree we should wipe out this form of Alphabetic-racism. NikoSilver 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got me wrong...

I appear on the list twice as having nommed 1 and 2 articles. Both are wrong- I've nommed three successfully- Dungeons & Dragons (album), Connie Talbot and Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album). I'd fix it myself, but I don't want to touch something maintained by a bot. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit should fix it. Wikipedia doesn't, but the bot thinks "user: J Milburn" (note the leading space) is somebody different than "user:J Milburn". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix Rick Bot

It keeps trying to update Morwen's contributions, which leads to a fouled template distorting the entire list. Serendi^podous 11:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Updates are not made to this page; they are made to the individual year pages, example: Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009‎ and then the bot updates this page. 15:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

TFA nom count

Has there been any discussion of having a section of this page or a WP:WBTFAN page to count and credit WP:TFA appearances by nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be easy. For instance, if a nomination appeared on WP:TFAR for an hour, and gained, say, three supports and three opposes, but then it was replaced by another article with more points, then is it counted? Plus, it can't even technically be counted since the bot isn't running all the time. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean you should count main page appearances based on FA credit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean, for example, if someone has 12 stars on this page but only 4 of those articles have appeared on the main page the number for that person would be 4? If anyone really cares about such numbers it wouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out. Presentation-wise, this could go in a new column and while we're there it would probably make sense to add a count of current FAs (as opposed to former FAs) as well, and make the table sortable. I'm in the middle of constructing WP:WBFPC (which will take weeks to complete). If there's a consensus that folks want this I can put it in the queue. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is my intent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if it's very easy to do: no need for make-work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like the idea. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anything going on with this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not currently working on this and can't really offer up an estimated completion time at this point. Don't expect anything in any time frame less than months. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remove me from this list

I'd like to be removed from this list. I don't have any hard feelings against any individual involved in FA-writing or with the people who make this page, I just feel like I need to separate myself from this sort of thing if I am to continue writing quality articles on wikipedia. I'd like to have my name removed from this list and if I write any more articles that turn out to be FAs then I would like my contribution to them not to be noted here. I understand that a bot maintains this, so I hope this isn't too hard to do. Wrad (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the bot offline?

It hasn't updated in a while. Serendi^podous 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My precious credit is being divided!

Since my entire purpose in being on Wikipedia is to advance as far up this list as possible, I am naturally distraught that the five featured articles I wrote back when my user name was Sarcasticidealist are listed separately to the one I've written as Steve Smith; I'd fix it manually, but I fear that doing so would break the special magic on which bots run. Any suggestions? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus and Giano both have the articles written under their old names "merged", so I'm sure Rick can handle it if you ask him nicely. – iridescent 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Do it yourself is OK, too. Replace your old user id with your new user id in the by-year summary lists (e.g. WP:FA2009). The list here is recreated from these lists every time the bot runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So done - thanks. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)