Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Discussion on the TFA template's talk page

I think that discussions on the proposed today's featured article should happen on the specific TFA template's talk page (for example here, and then transcluded in the requests page. It will work if we adopt a system as proposed in the poll, but also in the present system. Essentially for traceability and transparence reasons, allowing the discussion to be found easily in the aftermath, etc. Cenarium ^Talk 17:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I strongly suggest this page should be archived so options can be more clearly examined. And I strongly oppose any involvement with the page templates. Why decentralize discussions? That will only make the task harder on everyone, including Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussions will still be visible in the requests page, no apparent changes. Like the FAC and FAR pages actually. We just won't have to dig through the page's history to find the discussion. Cenarium ^Talk 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but. You start an article on a specific date, the date gets changed, you've got a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A new discussion would be created at the template talk of the other date, we have enough time before the final scheduling. It would work in a system like the one proposed in the poll. An article should be proposed at only one date at the time however, and when it moves to another date, the discussion at the prior date should be closed. Cenarium ^Talk 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes with the current setup of the templates you would have nominations on two months (two pages), therefore to sidestep the problem populate the request space with 14 templates after the last locked in date. How is any of this hard to implement? - Roy Boy 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I lost track

I lost track of the procedures. Are we allowed to remove a main page request and replace it with another? I have a four or five pointer with a very relevant date of July 11. Since Birmingham campaign was replaced, reverted, replaced, and reverted, then replaced, was wondering if we're still doing that. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no replacements, but if something else was nominated for July 11, you could add your request under the same heading. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thedemohog, can you please clarify? Has something changed? The page used to work by higher-point articles replacing lower-point articles on same date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the whole reason for the point system. If you can't replace a lower-point article, then why assign points? Karanacs (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this an exception to the five article rule? That a sixth article may be added if it directly competes with an existing nomination for a date?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Higher value nominations replace lower nominations. There can be any number of nominations for the same day, provided there are no more than 5 on this page. And yes, nominations for the same day still count as separate nominations. Raul654 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is conceivable, therefore, that in occasion there may be discussion on the page for just three days out of the following thirty. Interesting. Waltham, The Duke of 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a frequent misstatement seen on this page. It's five days until the next time Raul schedules and clears the page, which isn't the same as five out of thirty. I think Raul is doing a pretty good job of meeting as many requests as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree. How many days are served depends on how many days a nomination remains on the page. For all thirty days to be served, each nomination would have to stay on the page for no more than five days, and no nomination should be made for the same day as another. The current average on the page is 10.8 days (and that is because two nominations were filed yesterday). In other words, more than half of the following month will not be decided here, including several potentially interesting nominations. And people clearly resent that. Waltham, The Duke of 05:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they don't seem to understand that there are other factors in scheduling the mainpage; if Raul is scheduling almost half the mainpage per editor requests, and still maintaining diversity, that's proof that we've struck the right balance and have a darn good system. I wasn't aware the ratio was that high. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for this page got changed somewhere along the way, and no longer agreed with Raul's statement (above). Further, the page no longer states that articles nominated here should not have already appeared on the main page. These kinds of problems may be occurring because changes to the instructions for the page may be missed on watchlists amid the changes to nominations and support/oppose declarations. The instructions for this page should be in a separate, transcluded page, just as at WP:FAC, WP:FAR and others, so that changes to the instructions don't go missed for months as this one was ... and how did the instructions get changed, anyway? Now I understand why I'm getting so many queries on my talk page from confused and upset editors; the way the instructions read were not what Raul intended, and didn't allow a chance for anyone else to get in unless they happened to be here when an opening came up. No wonder people were unhappy; the point system wasn't being used to replace low-value noms. The instructions should be on a separate, transcluded page so changes aren't missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten quite how cruel the system was. Following the guideline, if there are four three-point nominations and one with two points, the two-point nomination will have to go to make way for another three-point one, and even worse, in an irrelevant date, leaving the hapless nominator wondering whether it was worth waiting two weeks for an opening. Yes, this is a darn good system. (By the way, Raul is scheduling much more than half the nominations; three of those currently on the page are 16 or 20 days old, and pages are often removed without even making it to the Main Page.) Waltham, The Duke of 06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not cruel if a worthy article is nominated. I believe the system started to change because some people were gaming the system by trying to split or change the category definition. This brought a statement from Raul that he was not pleased with the system and others began to make proposals for improvement. Does the gaming problem still remain? --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's like a battle of the wtf?s and heyitdoesn'tmatter going on in my head. So, out of respect to User:Coemgenus, whose nomination of...a king whose name I forget for July 12, I decided not to post a July 11 4 or 5 pointer request for To Kill a Mockingbird. However, here I see July 12 is no longer here, and a July 20 took its place. How did the July 20 take its place? Why, if it's for a separate date (one of the reasons why I did not replace July 12 king article) was this possible? Or was it because the July 12 king article got opposes? Who decided when there are enough opposes to replace it? And honestly, since TKaM is already viewed thousands of times a day, is it really necessary in the middle of summer when no one is in school for it to be on the main page? Can someone give me a pill so I can wander off and play with something sparkly? --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any pills, but I do have M&Ms of the peanut variety. On a side note, when Knut (polar bear) was on the mainpage a few months ago (not by request, btw), I nearly had a coronary trying to keep up with the onslaught of "grammar fixes", inaccuracies, vocal opponents of cute animals, and just plain, stupid vandalism. It was a joy to see his furry face on the mainpage, but that joy was quickly overpowered by sheer anxiety. Who requests to have that sort of stress brought upon them willingly? Regardless, great articles will eventually have their day in the sun. ...Whether we're ready for it or not. María (habla conmigo) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Perhaps this is a telling omen to get me to leave it alone. Though the page is partially protected due to heavy IP vandalism while school is in session, I will be travelling on July 11 and won't be able to revert the nuttiness that will undoubtedly ensue. This will probably be a good thing. The last editor I dealt with who tampered with the article inserted cited claims about vicious mockingbird behavior, insisting he right the symbolic wrong of Harper Lee in portraying them as gentle and sweet creatures. I'm not sure I can take 24 hours of that. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The best thing for the article's editors to do for their own sanity is to not to deal with vandalism themselves until it is off the Main Page. Plenty of people help revert the vandalism. Then, when it is all over, I go thru all the edits, 10 or 20 at a time, to see if anything useful got dropped or any junk crept in. The system works! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The only time I've had to deal with it was when the Borat movie was TFA. We did our best to keep up with the flood of vandalism, unhelpful edits, and doubtful insertions of everyone's favorite (but misremembered) jokes. Just so the article would look as good as possible for as much of its moment of glory as possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that primary contributors in FAs could send a Letter of Reservation (legalistic term I've just invented) to the Director requesting that the article should not be featured on the Main Page in a certain time period due to other commitments. However, this is irrelevant from the reforms proposed on this page (unless we are to put the scheduled date in the Article History template, which is of doubtful utility and probably outside the realm of possibility). Moni's concern about articles replacing others in different dates is a perfectly legitimate one; this system is very unpredictable and can completely ruin one's programming. All I have to say is that my proposal would eliminate this problem entirely, leaving only re-arrangements for articles without valid date connections. Waltham, The Duke of 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

??? Scheduled date is put in the {{articlehistory}} template, with the maindate parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that only articles already featured on the Main Page bore the date in the template. My mistake. Waltham, The Duke of 01:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With the replacement policy reinserted, I think the system as it stands is reasonable, since it allows replacement of low point articles with higher point ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse "low point" for "lower point"; in the theoretical event that there are four four-point and one three-point nomination, the latter can still be replaced, even though it is a decent nomination. (Actually, let's take the threes and fours down a notch; are two-pointers really bad? All of them?) This system should ensure that there would be only a handful of date-related TFAs and the rest would be taken care of Raul and would be largely date-irrelevant, ensuring mostly thematic variety; yet Karanacs is complaining that most TFAs end up having some obscure date connections—and I am not ready to dismiss these concerns just yet. Something's off. Waltham, The Duke of 01:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I leave this page for a day and I have 40 kb to read. Anyway, early in this section, Sandy asked me to clarify. Clarification from me is no longer needed, but for the record, this diff explains why I was confused with the process. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with a loose free-for-all in the selection of TFAs. In my view, Raul manages the system well, and can be trusted to continue to do so. I'm sorry that some people will be frustrated: that's inevitable, but a single hand closely coordinating the selections is essential. No horse designed by committee here, please. TONY (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- How do you define free for all? "Freeness" is a relative concept. Waltham, The Duke of 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

If something is celebrating a 20th anniversary, does it get two points like a 10th anniversary does? I'd like to know. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A timely question. I am of the opinion that if 10 years give an article 1 point and 50 years gives it 4, years in between should give it something in between. It's perfectly logical to me, but others I guess don't share that. Maybe. They have not returned to the current July 11 request to explain. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it the same as a ten-year. Wrad (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Same as 10. The fifty is a special anniversary, I think we can lump 10, 20, 30, 40 into the same bag.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been thinking of something similar. I say we treat all century marks the same, namely with 6 points, the rest of the fifty-year marks (50, 150, 650, etc.) with four points, and all other decade marks (10, 70, 140, 390, etc.) with two points. Simple and reasonable, I believe.

PS: One might want to elevate 250- and 750-year anniversaries to six, or maybe five points. But, on the other hand, if we are to go down that road... Still, jubilees and other important anniversaries of significant events deviating from the scheme might actually gain a "current event" point due to major celebrations, so there could be no problem after all. Waltham, The Duke of 00:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: Multiples of 100 6 points. All other multiples of 50, 4 points. All other multiples of 10, 2 points. (we're multiplying by positive whole numbers). Special rule: 25th anniversary ONLY (no multiples), 3 points.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, but skip the twenty-fifth anniversary exception. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Simpler the better.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think we are saying exactly the same thing in two different ways. Waltham, The Duke of 07:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, can we make the change? –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - make any changes to the point values you guys want. The points are awareded based on what I thought were desirable characteristics to reward, but if you think you can do better, feel free to modify the point values or add new chracteristics. To be frank, I don't care how you guys decide one nomination is better than another - only that I'm not inundated by them. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that one way to allow more requests is to allow the "!voting" community to remove requestst that don't have support, making room for new requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the point system? Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been cases, I believe, of equal point noms not being able to get in, when the community support for the existing nom was low. Specifically, some of the date connections are iffy at times. The community might have a role in sorting those out, by being able to replace equal point articles based on consensus. This would open up more slots, stop some "gaming of the system" via points, and give the community more input. The frustration to some is that if they can't grab a slot right away when one opens up, they can never get in. (Thinking of Mon's situation, twice.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a valid point about gaming the date-connection points. Raul654 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The counterargument is that large Projects or popular topics can then overwhelm the request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for rule suggestions, but a clarification of the current rules. What are the current rules? Does a 20th anniversary get 2 points like a 10th anniversary does under the current rules? LuciferMorgan (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that. Under the current rules, a twentieth anniversary gets only point ("date relevant to article topic"). –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But the only reason it's like that is because someone changed it from what it used to be without discussion. It used to give more points to multiples of ten. Go ahead and change it. Wrad (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

People have been using 6 points for Multiples of 100 (The Third of May 1808, (May 3)); 4 points for multiples of 50 (Minneapolis (July 20), history of Minnesota (May 11)); 2 points for multiples of 10 (Israel (May 8), Elagabalus (May 16), Royal Blue (May 15)); and 1 point other date. Nobody stated they disagreed with those. I think rules should be clarificated or changed for the use of multiples. (Halgin (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

I'll change it back to what it was (multiples). Wrad (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It never was that; I think we just don't really know what decennary means. ;) –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I made this edit two months ago. The wording was more or less as it is now, though; no change in meaning. Waltham, The Duke of 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbering in instructions

Instructions have been moved to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to a note above my post.) Are you asking to move this topic? Right, the instructions are included in the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests; they aren't part of the page text. There's a link to them below (in the word "instructions"). —SusanLesch (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but people need to find the current text and know where it is edited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just a note and nothing urgent. Two of us came up with entirely different ways of counting points recently. (It didn't matter a whole lot in this case because we arrived at the same total in two ways.) Would it help to reword the instructions a tiny bit? Points aren't everything but we are using them. I scanned up and down the list, thinking each of the items in the criteria lists is separate. Probably I'm the only person who thought so, but in the absence of any numbers it might help to be explicit. I agreed with the person who saw the list as "four" things to be summed. —SusanLesch (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A draft for you

Points are awarded per article by adding together the points for four criteria:

1. Age. Choose one:

Promoted less than one year ago: 0 points
Promoted over a year, but less than two, ago: 1 point
Promoted two or more years ago: 2 points

2. Timing. Choose one:

Date relevant to article topic: 1 point^[1]
Decennary anniversary (10-year multiples): 2 points
Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points
Centennial anniversary (100-year mulitiples): 6 points
None of the above: 0 points

3. Importance. Choose one:

Notable topic:^[2] 1 point
Vital article: 2 points
Core topic: 3 points
None of the above: 0 points

4. Diversity. Choose one:

Subject underrepresented in Wikipedia (category has fewer than 50 featured articles: See WP:FA "Contents" for list of categories): 1 point
Otherwise: 0 points

Why the redundancy? Isn't it implicit that where the conditions are not met no points will be granted? Waltham, The Duke of 06:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a case of people who see it often just "knowing" what it means. Australia is both a WP:CORE article and WP:VITAL article so it could receive either 3 or 5 points for Importance, or maybe 6 sometimes if somebody counts notable. Also, looking again, this draft needs more work, like a real multiple choice, a), b), c) so only one line counts. Once that's clear then the 0 points could go away. —SusanLesch (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is redundant: But we have had people asking recently how many points you get for a 48th anniversary . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the proposed text above is redundant and will just chunk up the page by adding the zeroes; hopefully the new proposal (at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions/temp) is clear enough, but I don't see the need to specify the zeroes or choose one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting over

There are many different and confusing aspects of what various people are asking for, without discussing and coming to a consensus on how to better address the concerns. (Also notably missing is any example of Raul mismanaging TFA on the mainpage or being unwilling to discuss reasonable options -- reasonable meaning not hundreds he has to sort through or that lower mainpage diversity or increase resource starvation). First, the instructions were off for over a month, which confused everyone.[1] Second, some are suggesting the templates should be unprotected and filled in by the community (which would be a free-for-all and a wreck). Third, it's unclear if the community can remove requests that receive little support, making room for more requests. Finally, some are suggesting changes to the point system and five-day issue, which is an entirely different issue that could be separately discussed (per Raul's earlier response) without the additional confusion of a malformed poll. There are a number of different issues being thrown in by different people; I suggest archiving the page, remove the malformed poll, and actually start discussing. Raul has already indicated that he's not concerned so much with how points are assigned, etc., but that he not have mountains of requests to sort through (which was the history of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - make any changes to the point values you guys want. The points are awareded based on what I thought were desirable characteristics to reward, but if you think you can do better, feel free to modify the point values or add new chracteristics. To be frank, I don't care how you guys decide one nomination is better than another - only that I'm not inundated by them. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we just leave you two alone to figure it out? Or are there other considerations?

Where did the "hundreds he has to sort through" and "free-for-all" come from?

Where did my 5 day old straw poll go? Is 5 a magical number or something? - Roy Boy 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the history/archive I'm willing to wait, if somebody manages to reconstitute the better aspects of the poll that deals with the 5 nomination bottleneck and removing informal requests from the user talk space. I'm looking for a solution, not a tweak to a 5 nom. system that would require expedited cleaning/approval that could result in other problems such as lack of review. I was going to be upset, but upon reading "disappointments will also go up" below I'll slow myself down. - Roy Boy 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The 5 nomination limit is there because the previous incarnation of this page had no limit, and it grew beyond all control or maintenance, and I stopped paying attention to it. I created this page to remedy the situation. The 5 nomination limit is my requirement for using it -- if people want to do away with it, then I will cease to consider this page when scheduling the FAs that appear on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My honest and candid opinion on that is, Raul, that if you don't want to do it the way wikipedians want you to do it, then you shouldn't have the job at all. Wrad (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And my honest and candid opinion in return is that the community is not unhappy with the job Raul has done and your tone and attitude hasn't helped resolve these issues. Staying on topic and seeking reasonable solutions in the restarted discussion would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, Wikipedians haven't built a consensus on it yet, don't presume it. Raul654, thanks for clarifying, but from the very beginning I inferred the previous situation was likely too democratic, resulting in the current situation. How this makes 5 nominations (in no particular order) a suitable remedy escapes me and others. - Roy Boy 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Gotta agree with Sandy about the tone. Some of us are unhappy; it remains to be seen how many, but that candor won't endear the cause to anyone. That said, I do hope the above statement is not to be construed as "If I have to look at any more than five requests, forget the whole thing." I think some number greater than five can be considered reasonable. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Say what you want, but when I hear Raul say that all I hear is "I don't give a care what the community decides. I'm the FA director and I'm doing it the way I want to do it." I think Raul's doing okay with TFAs. He's never picked a particularly bad one in my opinion. But when he treats discussions like these with such obvious contempt it really gets under my skin. Being an admin or a bureaucrat doesn't give you power to ignore consensus. I don't care who you are. We may not have a large consensus yet, but what Raul is essentially saying is he wouldn't care even if there was one. He'd just ignore it. Wrad (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Points issues

Given Raul's comments and some of the now-archived issues, I'd suggest that the community come up with more detailed examples of how the points are awarded. In the last week there have been several questions here about how points are awarded. This may also fix some of the issues that were raised in regards to gaming the system. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they look fine the way they are. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the point system, and how it is being gamed. One example is that no points could be awarded to Coeliac disease during Celiac awareness month (May). Another is what I call the date connection to Version A of Video game B released in Country C on Date D; some of the date connections become very tenuous. At one point, we discussed that it had to be a significant date per the article? The other issue is underrepresented topics; it may be time to update the chart, and make sure it's adhered to. And, what is of interest to a 12-yo isn't at all clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, on underrepresented topics, maybe we should ditch the chart and just list them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We should update the list of underrepresented topics. Here is an updated list from Featured articles contents as of 26 June, 2008.

Chart of underrepresented categories at WP:FA

Contents as of 26 June, 2008	Count
Art, architecture and archaeology	72
Awards, decorations and vexillology	26
Biology and medicine	173
Business, economics and finance	19
Chemistry and mineralogy	30
Computing	17
Culture and society	47
Education	33
Engineering and technology	36
Food and drink	12
Geography and places	154
Geology, geophysics and meteorology	79
History	151
Language and linguistics	18
Law	30
Literature and theatre	128
Mathematics	15
Media	168
Music	169
Philosophy and psychology	13
Physics and astronomy	74
Politics and government	63
Religion, mysticism and mythology	39
Royalty, nobility and heraldry	87
Sport and recreation	144
Transport	61
Video gaming	86
Warfare	162

Maybe it should be on the WP:FA Why are they different than WP:CATS? (Halgin (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

That would be a long conversation, off-topic here. Can we summarize this down to which are underrepresented, somehow shorten it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Underrepresented:

Awards, decorations and vexillology
Business, economics and finance
Chemistry and mineralogy
Computing
Culture and society
Education
Engineering and technology
Food and drink
Language and linguistics
Law
Mathematics
Philosophy and psychology
Religion, mysticism and mythology

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the explicit list to the instructions; if anyone disagrees, no problem, but the old chart was outdated and I don't see why a reader should have to click out to a hard-to-read chart to figure out which categories get a point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to updated when one of them get over 50 articles.(Halgin (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

The only one close is Culture and society; I will try to remember to watch that category as I promote, but extra eyes are welcome :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Community removal of requests

I'd also like to see a discussion of whether the community can remove requests that receive little support of have a tenuous date connection. The upside is more room for requests. The downside is that large groups or Projects or popular topics could dominate the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And also ones where it receives large support too. Buc (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would we remove requests that have support? We leave them for Raul's consideration (and he may have other factors to consider, so even with high support, they aren't a done deal). Am I misunderstanding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well we would have to make sure Raul knew about it but it seems silly to have nom where it's clear what the consensus is and there is no need for further discussion, taking up one of the slots. Buc (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I say that only requests with clear consensus against them should be removed. Whether or not a date connection is tenuous is subjective and removal of requests with consensus for appearing on the main page will cause confusion. Raul654 may forget about them and users may nominate something for a date that already has an article (silently) decided. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You aren't misunderstanding, but point is there are routinely several nominations that are obviously supported, and barring extra considerations by the TFA director, they will be TFA's. The problem is if they are not cleared off promptly, they just sit there... for days... until they are moved by someone. The slot is wasted as a nominee waits for the obvious. The flip side is nominees need "sufficient time" for consideration. Well with 5 slots, sufficient time is frustratingly too long. - Roy Boy 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not understanding, because they should stay for Raul's consideration. They aren't a done deal until/unless he schedules them, and by moving them off, you efffectively increase the five total. The way it works is that when Raul sits down to schedule the mainpage, he looks at five community requests; if you move off those that the community approves, and add new ones, you're effectively giving him more than five and leaving him no leeway for diversity. I'm saying move off the opposes to make more room for new noms within the five. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we would be forcing then to be on the main page. Just say to Raul something like "X for X date has been approved by the community. It's up to you now." Buc (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I like this idea. What I fear is that a nomination will happen, and there will be no comments. I suspect that someone might seize on the fact that no one has posted as "community can remove requests that receive little support". In other words, silence is deemed opposition. The other part is even worse, "tenuous date connection." Sez who? I think the "greater number of points" is an adequate way to bounce one proposal and insert another. This feels like it could be used as a pretext to do the same thing, with inadequate cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, well, the point is to set up a more robust mechanism; these issues aren't currently defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Opportunities

My only issue with the process is that a hard five nomination rule does not give ample opportunity to get particular date requests up. I feel strongly that for every date in the window, at least one (but probably no more than two) nominations should be allowed. As to how long the window is (the next two weeks, the next month, etc.) I don't care. If we allow more than one nom per date, points decide (subject to the usual Raul-trumps-all regulations to preserve topic balance, etc.) Under the current system, someone could have a legitimate, well-supported, unopposed date request and not be able to get it in because they can't catch a time when there are fewer than five requests up. Under my proposal, everyone at least gets a fair shot at a date request, and if there are collisions, the "best" article (the one with the most points) wins. Seems fair to me.

BTW, I'd like to mention that I don't think this means Raul is doing a bad job; it should not be construed as such. It's just constructive criticism that I hope will improve the process. Nor do I want to return to the huge list we had before. Perhaps Sandy's comment (now archived) that "no number of slots will ever be large enough to make everyone happy" is accurate, but I think we can do better than we are now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'd like to see two things addressed, that proponents keep glossing over. 1) As it is, Raul is scheduling almost half of the mainpage from these requests; it's not possible (in terms of diversity and resource starvation) to schedule the entire mainpage based on requests. By upping the number of requests, the number of disappointments will also go up, as Raul won't be able to use all of them. 2) The five-day thingie isn't working well, IMO, because the community has instituted no mechanism to remove those that have little support, still presenting five to Raul. Why not work on improving the functioning within the five days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the number of disappointments may go up as topic balance concerns trump worthy nominations, but how many disappointments are we experiencing now as a result of never getting the suggestion in front of the community's eyes in the first place. Personally, I'd rather be told that my article couldn't be on the main page because it was too similar to article X that was featured on day Y than to be told that its merits would not be evaluated at all because I couldn't get my request in an arbitrary number of slots because I'm not a wiki-stalker.

In response to removing requests with little support, the window is only two weeks to begin with. It takes some time to build support (or at least determine that it isn't being built.) Meanwhile, other possibly worthy topics languish for want of a spot. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points; the idea is to figure out how to have the discussion while not overwhelming the page with too many requests or Raul with too many to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed good suggestions/points, most of which were on the page prior to it being archived. *grumble* - Roy Boy 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I've left the window open for discussion. A two week window with a possibility of two noms per date is 28 requests. Whether that is manageable or not is subjective, I guess, but it's better than 300 or whatever the old page was. If 28 is unmanageable, make it one nom per date (14) or a smaller window. And if they are ordered chronologically by date, I don't think sorting should be an issue. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might offer a suggestion for compromise :-) I recommend dropping any mention of certain shorter "windows", since that's not how Raul schedules the page. And 28 is clearly way above his preference of five. He has asked for five requests at a time, and since that results in scheduling of almost half of the slots, going above five won't be likely to yield the results some here want (which is their article on the main page when they want it). Why not work within the five to give the community more say about which five are presented to Raul, by improving the ability of all of you to decide what gets voted off the island? Then, if you all can make that work, perhaps you can later consider asking Raul to up it to 10 at a time (by whatever mechanism you choose). Frankly, seeing how this page has(n't) worked, the idea of turning over mainpage scheduling to the community is scary; if y'all can get a better track record here, you'll have a stronger case for asking to up the five. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: windows, quoting the instructions: "Requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled." This is what I am referring to as a window. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that isn't how Raul schedules the main page.

And I'd like to point out the title of this section is "opportunities." I respectfully disagree with your assertion that what "we" want is "our" article on the main page when "we" want it. What I (and I can't speak for others) want is the opportunity to have the merits of "my" article evaluated for the main page by Raul and the community. Even if we come up with a great point system for evaluating articles, my opinion is that there is not ample opportunity to request application of said system. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I shouldn't speak for Raul on the window, but sometimes he schedules far in advance, so I don't think restricting him to a shorter window would yield better results for those who seek a slot. Not sure, should ask Raul on this one. The way I read this discussion, the community simply wants more input, and my suggestion is to first make something work within the 5/30 framework Raul established, and then move on to asking him for more :-) Establish a better track record first; the history of this page doesn't yet inspire confidence that the community can manage TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the previous "free-for-all" setup did not work does not necessitate the conclusion a broader window TFA cannot be managed by the community. Management comes with appropriate rules and conventions. Stonewalling isn't inspiring either. (also, a better track record has been established with the current 5 nom. process) - Roy Boy 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfair accusations of stonewalling don't help either, and it's that tone from a handful of people that keep this discussion from advancing productively. Why not put some "appropriate rules and conventions" in order that work; that hasn't been done to date, because anything that has been tried has been gamed. Moderating the tone here would be a good start towards improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You know what's unfair? Trying to think while drinking Strongbow, yummy!! The previous discussion was a bit fragmented, but as new people joined it happens; I'll take the blame for a poll with scant details as I presumed they were being outlined above it.

My intention has been to combine what works with the 5 nom. non-linear system with a 14, 21 or 28 linear day system. There is a false premise that Raul is ferreting through noms. Nooooo, that isn't necessary on a Wiki for frak-sake. The nom. process can regulate itself with limited noms. per date (2 for example) and leveraging an expanded and detailed point system that clarifies positive aspects of articles, takes into account coverage of topics, history of TFA (that would shift as topics are covered and/or rotated as needed) that favors sexier, timelier, unrecognizeder articles that can benefit with more eyes upon them.

The request page would have XX days of templates ahead of the last TFA director locked date.
Nominations per date is restricted to Y.
Points are assigned by TFA assistants/nominators who (hopefully) reach a semi-quick consensus with the community on which nomination has more points.
Requests 7 days after the last locked TFA are cleared of losing nomination(s) by a TFA assistant.
3i. Optional to make room for 1 meaningful alternative nomination in the last week? (perhaps from the Director themselves) Obvious non-competitive requests in the last week can simply be removed.
In the last 7 days of nominations, there would be pre-assessed articles the TFA director can approve, or swap out. The extra work comes in providing a short reason/suggestion why the nomination lost in relation to the article the director choose.

While step 4 does involves slightly more work, it is done with the explicit goal of mitigating disappointment and acknowledging the community involvement in the TFA process. However, I emphasize the TFA director does not maintain the nomination/request page; assistants do that and consequently the workload is spread out like it should have been in the first place. Note: Nominations to the Director's talk page should be redirected to the request page. This isn't a club, its a Wiki.

A linear progression keeps things organized, permits better community input and facilitates delivery of requests to the TFA director. For reserved dates, it would be beneficial for everyone if they are marked as such; to head off disappointment. - Roy Boy 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did the same person who mentioned stonewalling just re-submit the same long proposal that takes into account none of the conversation so far :-)) RoyBoy, would it be possible for you to consider some sort of compromise, which would allow this page to work in a direction of more, while starting with less? Raul says five requests; you popped right back up to a number much higher than that, while giving no suggestions for how this page will be managed any better than it has been in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understand Roy's proposal, I think I like it. Are you basically saying that the community (not Raul) maintains a longer queue (say two weeks with two noms each), divvies up points, provides relevant commentary, removes noms with fewer points, etc. until seven days before an article would appear on the main page, then Raul looks at the nom chosen by the community and decides whether it meets topic balance criteria, etc.? If he goes with the community's decision, no problem; if not, he leaves a brief reason why not and chooses his own article. If this is what is being proposed, it sounds to me like it does take into account Raul's concerns about workload and others' concerns about more community involvement. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be; I'm having a hard time understanding most of RoyBoy's writing. But if that is the proposal, Raul doesn't necessarily schedule in 7-day increments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, the goal is to have 7 days leeway, if Raul schedules 3 or 4, then 3 or 4 requests are cleared accordingly to maintain a 7 day buffer. I have tweaked my proposal list to clarify my intent. (I didn't mean to say "prior" in my suggestion) - Roy Boy 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I blame the Strongbow! Heh, seriously, the 5 request limit is insufficient and is based on Raul/helper needing to maintain the request page. Frankly I'm surprised it works as well as it does, and that is a credit to y'all. In a Wiki it simply isn't necessary.

Acdixon, that's essentially right, though the 7 days (and all set number of days) are based on the last chosen "locked" TFA by the director. This ensures TFA assistants give the Director essentially a week to consider vetted requests. So when the Director chooses a Y number of TFA's, that sends a signal to assistants to clear out Y more dates of losing requests. There should only be (1 or 2) pending requests -- depending on the rules -- on queue per date for the Director to consider. And when there are pre-reserved dates in queue, then there are even fewer requests to go through.

With TFA assistants doing the work there is more flexibility in the request process. ie. more days ahead like 21 would be nice and/or 3 requests per day. In the end it really doesn't matter, with sufficient official TFA assistants they can keep things in check and move things along one week at a time. There is the notion that with more time/requests there is more fighting and disappointment. I've found with more time it is easier to say to those who's requests did not make it to the final week, that the community has spoken. In the end, that is what matters, and the average Wikipedian will be satisfied with it. This of course, relies on clear and fair point assessments; a complaint/problem that faces any process based on points, including the current setup. - Roy Boy 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow :-) I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your proposal. What I do see is mention of "assistants", when the whole complaint here is that the community should be able to run the page by itself. I can tell you from personal experience that the "assistants" will soon become viewed as extensions of Raul, with the same complaints about "Raul and assistants" :-) I suggest you put a system in place that allows the community more flexibility in choosing and presenting five articles at a time to Raul with the hope that the five can grow to ten if it works. Other than that, I can't really tell what you're proposing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree re: assistants. Just let the community maintain the page. It's been my experience that certain people will be more active in maintaining this area than others, and they will become de facto assistants, just like the same people show up over at FAC, GAC, etc. However, the rest of the proposal makes sense and sounds like a good solution to me. Let me throw out an example scenario as I understand the process and see if that helps.

We begin the system on August 1. Raul has scheduled TFAs up through August 9 (random choice). The community decides that we want to consider requests for a three week period with a maximum of two nominations per date. Therefore nominations will be accepted for dates from August 10 (the first unscheduled date) to August 24 (three weeks later). When an article is nominated, points are assigned to it based on the rubric chosen by the community. The merits of the article are discussed by the community, !voting occurs, etc. At some future date, the community evaluates the nominations for August 10 through August 17 (seven days). If there are competing nominations on any of those days, the losing nomination is removed. Fast forward to August 7 (again, random choice). Raul decides he wants to schedule 4 more days. He looks at the nominations chosen by the community, and if they meet his approval, schedules them. If not, he leaves a brief explanation as to why and picks his own article. The community then opens up nominations for August 25 through 29 (to replace the four days Raul has scheduled.) If Raul wants to schedule in a non-linear fashion, he can just notify the community, and we block off that day from nominations. Clear as mud? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing any effective change or clear proposal here, particularly since this "community" isn't even doing this now, within the five days, when it could be. Example below: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Right now,[2] T-26 at Wikipedia:TFA/R#July_17 is claiming a point for date relevancy based on the start of the Spanish Civil War; this is the sort of thing the community could be enforcing now, not waiting for a new system. Is that a relevant date connection or not? Some here are proposing unclear changes to the system, when even the current point system isn't being used effectively. Does this article have a point or not? If the community doesn't use this point system effectively to manage the five articles that can be requested, why should the five be expanded ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Second example: in terms of mainpage diversity. History of Minnesota was run on May 11 for 150-year anniversary date; now Minneapolis is up for July 20 for the same (150-year) anniversary. Do two Minnesota anniversaries within two months defeat mainpage diversity? If you all want the "community" to decide validity of requests, why isn't that being debated now within Raul's five-request guideline? The complaint is about the five requests, but the five that are up are not being discussed and managed by the same people who are asking that even more requests be allowed. Why not establish first a mechanism for working within the five requests? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Third example: AC/DC is up now with an extremely tenuous date connection and several opposes. Do you all have a mechanism for removing that and allowing another to take the slot? Tenuous date connections with opposes can be removed, no? In summary, people are complaining about the five-request limit, but right now, there are only three requests up, and each one of them could be argued. Managing this system more effectively is the way to give the community more say, open up new slots, and still work within Raul's five-request limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The date connection for that tank seems to be supported by most people, including me, especially since the war is actually mentioned in the blurb. Big plus. I don't personally have a problem with Minneapolis but if others do I'm sure they'll bring it up. AC/DC is just begging to be replaced by a better nom with its contested 1-point status. I'll remove it if you like, because it does look pretty dismal, but noms like that regularly get replaced because so many people are jockeying for spots. When I look at this page, I see the community process sorting things out pretty well, but that's just me. I'm not too picky about exactly what gets on the main page. Wrad (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing you bring up, though, that I think should be fixed, is that the point system has no way of dealing with articles on the same subject (2 MNs in 2 months) on the main page in a short period of time. We need to subtract some points if that's the case. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it abundantly clear to a "newbie" coming to the page, not knowing the ins and outs, that AC/DC can easily be replaced (even by a 0-pointer) since it has mostly opposes? No. The system is not functioning clearly because the community here hasn't made it function clearly, leading to complaints that there are no slots. The "regulars" here haven't figured out a mechanism for removing unworthy noms, and then complain about Raul, when they haven't shown that they can manage this process any better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true Sandy. Noms like AC/DC get replaced all the time and the community part of the system runs much smoother than you are trying to portray. Wrad (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni didn't know what to do here (twice), and Lar's questions indicates it's not all that clear, and (for some weird reason that I don't understand) I get questions on my talk page regularly. It's not a clear system, and that could be a big part of the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On this page, nobody's in charge and nobody's sure who is. You and Raul are, I guess, technically responsible for the page, but don't seem to be able to keep up with what's going on. (That's understandable, of course.) Who are people supposed to ask questions to? Who is responsible for removing opposed noms? I honestly thought it was you FA directors, but that isn't what's going on. This frustrates me. This is a very important page and it needs better care. I'm not pointing any fingers here, I'm just stating how I feel. I think FA directors are victims as much as causers of this problem. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am really curious about why I have to keep saying this: being Raul's delegate at FAC gives me no standing whatsoever with respect to TFA/R. I am here opining as any other editor. I have nothing to do with mainpage scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You know that and I know that, but as long as people don't know for sure who to ask, they're going to ask you. Wrad (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case, I think I now understand the source of friction here. Did you all not understand that (as he indicated) Raul is comfortable with you all figuring out how to present him with five articles, and he isn't ruling this page with an iron fist? That's what I'm here complaining about (that Raul keeps getting "blamed", but it's up to interested parties to make this page work). Put up the proposed point tally for diversity, let's put it in front of Raul and see if he disapproves, and then add the chart if he agrees it will be helpful. Then it's really up to all of you to decide who's going to manage the chart, the removals, etc. (I'd really like to unwatch this page and get back to my regular duties ;-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will add that I like RoyBoy's TFA Assistants idea. We need something like that. Wrad (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful of what you wish for :-)) Ask The Rambling Man how his "Welcome to hell" is going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly wish I was one. If I were one, I would want there to be at least 2 more so I could be outnumbered. These people wouldn't actually move things onto the schedule. Raul does that just fine. They would answer questions, adjust the process as needed, and oversee discussion, removing noms that were getting a lot of opposition. Basically, a lot of responsibility (especially if we do the proposed system) and very little power. Wrad (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

A summary chart somewhere near the top of the page (just above the Table of Contents?), with date, article, consensus point tally, and a notes column (about "removability") making it more clear to newcomers what can be replaced without having to read through all discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Date	Article	Points	Comments
July 17	T-26	1 or 2	Points disputed Diversity questioned
July 20	Minneapolis	6	Diversity questioned
July 25	AC/DC ^a	0	Can be replaced by any article
August 1	Emily Dickinson	1

^a Example only, may have changed !!

Cool idea. Wrad (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you all think something like this would help, then I propose taking it to another level. Take for example, "Diversity questioned" at Minneapolis. If Raul can see this chart easily and clearly, it might be easier for him to clarify (he may see no problem with diversity there, and he can quickly either remove or reinforce the concern). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's up to Raul, but yes, I can see that happening. Wrad (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The way the page is set up now, you have to read through everything; this may help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I especially like the "Can be replaced..." bit. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're making progress :-) Now, for those who want to whack-a-Raul, you can say, "Here, Raul, we're giving you a chart that includes our questions; can you weigh in every five days", or whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This chart would mean nothing, of course, if no one updated it. I don't expect you and Raul to. I can do it, but can't guarantee I'll be able to keep up all the time without help. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say, "Can be replaced with any article with at least one point."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it has all opposes, so I'd say any article. How do y'all work these out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's opposed like this, no one is going to be opposed to just about anything replacing it. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up on our examples, and per the chart above, you now have three articles in various stages of 1 point; how do you all decide which one goes? Dickinson is the cleanest, the tank is a dubious date connection, so if you have to delete one, how do you decide between the tank and AC/DC? These are the issues you all have to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And, right now, there's no mention at AC/DC of when the last rock group was up, so there are still missing pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC obviously has no points (I recently changed the point count for it). Most editors commenting seem to agree. Consensus decides how many points you get. If there was solid three-way tie, then I guess you could just pick whatever you wanted and replace it. If we had date-closeness as part of the point system, I believe people would look closer at it (at least I would). Wrad (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought Buc just added the point because it was promoted over a year ago? (I haven't checked.) Anyway, assume they did all have one point; you need a mechanism for sorting out the next to be voted off the island, that can be highlighted in the chart so a newcomer knows what to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. AC/DC is the obvious choice here. I just checked an it has only been an FA for about 10 months or so. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spell it out; what's the criterion for future dilemmas? Based on what? Define it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I love this chart. I think if the (TFA nom) page followed some conventions, a bot could keep this chart tidy. (and, dare I say it, if the info was organized, more than 5 articles would not be overload for Raul... maybe not hundreds but maybe 10???) ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The direction I've been trying to move, Lar, is to get the community here (those who are concerned with this issue) to understand that they have to make it work for the five-request limit if they expect to be able to move beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What should be replaced: 1) Anything that is opposed by a significant majority of editors (80-90%). 2) The lowest point value. If there are two noms for the same date, the lowest value for that date goes first if there are already five noms, regardless of how many points noms for other dates have. (We can't have 2 TFAs in one day.) 3) If there is a tie for lowest noms, the one with the most unresolved opposes is removed. 4) If there is still a tie, the one with the weakest point count is removed. 5) If there is still a tie, then any of the lowest articles may be removed by one with a higher point count. Wrad (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary algorithm for voting off the island (someone needs to clean this up and put it into a clear and well written summary that can be added to the page after the diversity points are added in):

Regardless of points in other articles, if there are two noms for the same date, the nom with the lowest points within that date goes before any other nom
If item 1 doesn't apply and there are no ties or disputes, the lowest point nomination will be next in line to be replaced.
If there is a tie between two or more articles for lowest points:
the one with highest oppose percentage goes.

If there is a tie in oppose percentage, the one with the weakest point count support is removed

If there is still a tie, nominators may replace any one of the lowest noms tied with one of their own.
If five requests are up, automatically remove anything opposed by 75% of editors declaring (this can open up wars; I suggest rethinking it)

Here's the thing. The nominator counts as a support. Therefore, in order for anything to get 80-90 percent opposed, it would need at the very least 4 substantive votes to kick it out. That rarely happens here. I think things with that many opposes should go before low points do, because, when all is said and done, what matters is the consensus, not the points. The points just help make finding a consensus easier. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, can you please frame your proposal in wording and formatting ready to go on the page, so we can put one final proposal in front of Raul? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I reworded your proposal above, already, except for the last bit. Seemed like you weren't sure about it, so I responded above. Wrad (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

we can add the wording above to the temp proposal page as soon as you firm up the wording in the last point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the wording and put it one the temp page. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. That's why you are StonewALLing alternatives, it wasn't a unfair to say before and this is getting silly. I'm highly skeptical of any "pure" 5 request system because it is inherently difficult to provide timely assessment then clear (where does it go?) a slot for another request, which could very well be for a day that is much closer to today.

When I say "pure" I'm trying to be constructive, there can be a request system outside of this that can funnel requests in chronological order and feed 5 (hopefully 7) vetted requests for the days following the last locked TFA. The system you are propping up simply does not permit comparisons, competition to occur naturally and quickly. So AC/DC is out, but it was taking up 20% of the slots and it accomplished little. If AC/DC had alternative(s) for that date slot it could be knocked out while another is gaining support.

I am getting not happy again. 5 requests permits only 2.5 dates to be assessed at one time based on us trying to "make [alternatives] work". We need to have at least 10 requests simply to build consensus on 5 date slots as each would have 2 for consideration.

Again, its a credit to you guys that somehow half TFA's get approved through this process. That however overlooks the unnecessary rush being placed on TFA requests to turn over 5 slots quickly. - Roy Boy 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RoyBoy, if you wrote more clearly, I might be able to sort out what you're saying. At this point, your opposition doesn't seem well founded; I suggest giving it a chance, since for now, more than five days doesn't seem reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtracting points for well-covered areas

Sandy brought up a point we should address. Many of us are opposed to there being, say, 4 film articles in a month, but our point system doesn't account for this very well. I think we should subtract points using some simple formula if an article of a similar type has been up on the main spot recently. Say -4 if one was up last week, or -2 if in the last month, or something. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, wonder if Raul will give some feedback before moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And, that would eliminate my "diversity questioned" by working it into the tally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, but it may be difficult to define "similar type". I think this is probably an "I'll definitely know it if I see it" type of thing, but not sure how to codify it. Perhaps the nominator can calculate based on the regular numbering system, and consensus can decide if points should be removed because they see a diversity issue. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be the best way to do it. Things people constantly watch out for here are video game and film noms being too close together. Even a few with a decent amount of points have been booted because they were too close to the last film nom. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, somebody put up a point proposal that we can "vote" on and put before Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does Raul need to bother with this? It seems like such a small thing and he really isn't involved with what goes on here much... Wrad (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know what his "cutoffs" are in terms of diversity; do you? I say, just propose something that makes sense to you (as a mainpage watcher), and see if he disagrees. Usually, Raul let's the community decide, and if he disagrees on something, you hear rather quickly :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on the FAC page... Wrad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not just on the FAC page, and that's not fair. He has already said he's not much concerned with how you work out the five requests, just as long as he's not inundated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. He doesn't really get involved here unless it has something to do with the five thing. He hasn't commented on anything else on this page for quite awhile. At what point is it safe to assume it's okay and just do it rather than wait for him to look at something small like this? Wrad (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, put something in front of him. As far as I can tell, a measure of diversity is all that's missing to have a pretty decent system, and then you all need to appoint some "regulars" to maintain the chart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can at least try it. Wrad (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My bigger point is that, if the community can make the five days function smoothly, then the community is in a better position to assert that it can handle more. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that the community can even manage this page, so get on with it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have someone who wants to help try and fix something. I can only do so much. The FA directors are really ultimately in charge here, and it is very frustrating when "the buck stops here" guy just seems to expect it to work on its own and if it doesn't just wants to ignore it. This page CAN work! You just have to work at it like anything else on wikipedia! I and many other want this page to succeed, but we just can't do it when nobody is really in charge. We are sheep leading sheep. It is very frustrating. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, it's a wiki! Raul has given you the leeway to work it out as you wish; don't look that gift horse in the mouth. Why has no one proposed a diversity point system? Just do it! If no one here can do that, then don't be surprised if Raul has to take charge, and don't blame him for doing it his way. <scratching my head> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing to me. If I can work it out as I wish, why does he have to approve things like this? Should I "Just do it!" myself? Wrad (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't know Raul's cutoffs in terms how closely together he runs similar articles on the mainpage; do you? Wouldn't it be helpful for regular mainpage watchers to propose points for diversity, but then run it by Raul to see if it agrees with how he schedules? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question, when would these points be taken into account? Say I put up a film article for TFA on July 31, no other film article exists in the 5-day queue. However, between now (July 7th, lets say) and July 31, one film article is TFA'd via the non-request pool. Would that be a drop in score for the one requested? --MASEM 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have to drop in points so that we could ensure main page diversity. That shouldn't stop the article from being nominated again later. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a page just for proposals

This page is a mess so how about we start a new page called Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/proposals where peple can make suggestion to improve things and a sub section for discussion of the idea. Buc (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The page instructions have moved to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions, so that would be a logical place to move this conversation. I don't recommend that because the proponents for change are saying they need more input, and moving it will reduce input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been tweaking the instructions (no substantial changes: just formatting, bolding, linking, etc); please check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for closeness of noms in the same category

I propose we add to the point count a way to subtract points from articles that would schedule two articles from the same, specific category too closely together. For example, if one film article is nominated for a date within a week of another film article, it would recieve -3 points. If it was within two weeks, -2 points. If it was within a month, -1 point. Whether or not an article falls within the same category will be determined by a consensus of editors. We already have a mechanism for underrepresented articles, but not one for overrepresented ones. Wrad (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to make clear that this is measured differently than categories (for instance, film is in Media category at Wp:FA, and need to ask Raul if more than a month-long time frame concerns him (I don't follow the mainpage that closely, but we need to know if two months should have any points). And, we need to know if he's more lenient on running underrepresented topics closer together. And, I'm not sure it makes sense to include weekly, because the page doesn't run that fast, and it's kinda obvious. How about adding this under "Diversity":

Subject overrepresented on mainpage (if a similar article has run on the mainpage in a specified time frame before the requested date):< ref > Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FA; for example, two film articles.< / ref >

in the last two weeks: − 4
in the last month: – 3
in the last two months: – 2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This would still give Minneapolis 4 points, which would make it safe; is that how Raul schedules? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're not gonna do weekly, I'd rather just have bi-weekly and monthly as -3 and -2, respectively. I've noticed a good bit about how Raul schedules, but he would obviously know more than me. "TFA memory" for him seems to only last a month, which seems fair to me for most things. Wrad (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's just get a format and wording down so we can ask him about the whole thing without having to read through this entire page. I'm thinking a new section with the proposed table, diversity points, and removal algorithm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, SandyGeorgia (and pardon me, it was someone else's comments not yours, in one of these discussions caused me grief--I thought we were doing fine until a couple hours ago). One comment and one question. Minneapolis is over two months for a topic related to geography and the state of Minnesota (for 11 May to 20 July, I count two months plus nine days) so you may wish to adjust that a bit. May I add my numbers to your temp file as long as the instructions are going to be revised and sent to Dr. Raul? Thanks a bunch either way. —SusanLesch (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't yet know if the two months is a concern to Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers (linked above) are designed to reduce ambiguity for awarding points. I'll edit my numbers draft above instead of your temp page though. Good luck with months (AFAIK, that's a separate topic). —SusanLesch (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Working sample

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions/temp, sample started, where the whole thing can be presented to Raul once it's ironed out. The sample incorporates:

Accounting for mainpage diversity (time since similar topic appeared).
Explaining to nominators how to choose which nomination to replace.
Adding a summary table of the five requests

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got it set up now. Wrad (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it too complicated (is it going to overwhelm)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The chart, to be honest, makes it more simple, not more complicated. Do you have any idea how often people asked "Which one do I replace? I just want to make it very clear to readers that they don't have to worry about the algorithm for ordering so they don't get confused. I just want them to see the chart and replace what it tells them to. Behind the scenes editors can do the rest. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except I removed the explicit reference in the instructions about "next to be replaced" on the off chance that a requester comes along before a regular can update the chart. Shall we give people time to weigh in, and then ask Raul to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. All in all, I still believe the chart makes it easier to understand than the old version, even if we do have a hard time keeping up every once in a while. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A chart is a very sexy and elegant way to present, but the non-chronological nature is still problematic for TFA requests. I presume the comment section would take up the majority of the chart, as people expand their summary comments slightly, and add signatures. - Roy Boy 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about chronology, but I think the chart will be an important addition and a step in the right direction. If anyone messes with their comment section inappropriately I'll be on them like a hawk and I'm sure you will too. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what RoyBoy is referring to with chronology, and no, the comments don't take up the majority of the chart; the comments, discussion and each individual proposal goes below the chart, just as they are now. The chart is a 5-line summary only, and doesn't include sigs, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you haven't been diligent enough to read suggestions over the past several days. Chronology is the a big part of the frustration. Requests for 3 weeks in advance can be idling along, while people want a request simply submitted for 10 days from now. Thx for the comment clarification, that time I lacked diligence. l;'D - Roy Boy 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure I understand you. I only get your general drift. You want a system which would allow nominations closer to the latest scheduled date? I do too. I think it is wise that we make sure we have an infrastructure that can support that first, though. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, RoyBoy, but your writing just isn't that clear. The biggest problem with how this page was working was that, once five were in, it was hard to remove them. We now have a clearer methodology on how to replace articles that don't have support, which will allow for more requests and faster turnover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay... then I'll direct my frustration at myself for a bit. I'm just trying to say, I want TFA requests to be sorted (I know the chart does it) and submitted in order of date, and that any solution needs to be able to accommodate the fact there are people chomping at the bit to submit something for next week; but simply cannot because other (further out) dates are taking up slots and/or they are unaware their date already has a leading candidate. (either from this process, or selected by the TFA director) My proposal, and any solution for the TFA request process, I believe, needs to have XX slots in chronological order. So that at a glance people can see all the requests / approvals in logical order at all times.

Its just very difficult for me to wrap my head around 5 slots being able to nominate, consensus built, organize and deliver the required requests. And so far, the dates requested are still all over the place, making tracking and coordination very problematic, unless that is going to be handled on another page. - Roy Boy 04:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the Instructions update that Sandy put together. It is an improvement over the current Instructions. However I do see that there is an issue with timing. Example: there are 5 articles on the page all have very good points no opposes but they are all for the last week of July. I have an article I would like to propose for the 15th of July but can't justify knocking one of the others off the page. This is an extreme example, but just bringing it up. Is there any limit we should place on how far in advance an article can or should be recommended? 2 weeks? A month? etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecookiemaker (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

reread the instructions and saw that it is 1 month limit so nevermind☻TheCookieMaker Talk! 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In waiting for the rules to be established, the TFA for July 5th has already been chosen now. This is despite the fact that the article I want to choose, South of Heaven, celebrates its 20th anniversary on that day. How many more typhoons, hurricanes and the like does Wikipedia intend to feature on the main page (yawn). LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucifer, with a 20th anniversary, even without the new instructions, you likely would have had enough points to request it; hopefully the new instructions will be more clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Idea to make it even more simple

I just had an idea to make it even more simple. When a request becomes "next in line" we can put a notice over it saying that it is, making it even more clear what to do. There is little threat that the message will mislead because if the request is replaced, the notice will no longer be there until a regular comes along and fixes it. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean, under it's section heading ? But we still want the chart, so newcomers don't have to scroll through the whole page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Say you're a user that has a nomination and you wonder "What do I replace?" You see the chart says Article X is next in line. You scroll to article X and see a notice saying that it is indeed next in line and that you can replace it if you have something with more points. There is almost no chance that you wouldn't know what to do. Wrad (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Um, who's going to be doing all of this? ;-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The boogyman. I'll probably end up doing a lot of it, but whatever. Wrad (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sample page looks close now. How about if we give people time to weigh in, and then start a new, clean section for Raul (so he doesn't have to read this whole page), linking to the sample and explaining the three changes in broad brush? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

oops, Wrad, the sample isn't quit done, don't we have to subtract points for film recently on main page? Since you're going to be doing it, can you incorporate those changes on the sample page (accounting for the points subtracted for diversity)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd also have to check recent similarities on others (other city articles on Minneapolis, for example)? 01:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. One thing I'd like to see as well is who else would be willing to help update the chart. It's not a must, but it would be good to know what our "staff" is going to be... Wrad (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm doing this, I'm seeing that a two month penalty is a bit much. Just about every subject has been represented within that time. I'm going to adjust it to just two week and a month. Otherwise hardly anything has positive points and everything is getting something subtracted. Wrad (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm ... don't get me started on "staffing shortages" :-) That's why this is all harder than it looks, and these "off with his head" cries for Raul's work are highly dependent on who is actually going to do the work ... Raul gets the job done without fail :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also seeing that warfare articles as TFAs are rather common and it may be too broad a subject to penalize for diversity. Anxious to hear what Raul has to say... Wrad (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but based on the adjustments you just made, I can see that this will speed up page turnover, makes more sense, and will give more articles a slot, agree? I'm still concerned the page may overwhelm newcomers, but I guess if you're hot for a mainpage slot, you're willing to do the math. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the better we can keep up, the easier it will be for everyone. Wrad (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If a couple of people think we're close, I'll volunteer to write a summary for Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. I'd like to hear from the Duke of Waltham and demonhog. I personally think that this is a step in the right direction and a way to see if we have the infrastructure necessary to take on more noms. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and start a clean summary section, so you can ping the Duke and demonhog (and Karanacs, maybe)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll ping them. Wrad (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but give me a chance first to write a nice clean summary, that you can link them to :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Too late. I saw this just after I wrote them all. Heh heh. Wrad (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys have done a great job designing a more user-friendly system. Now that I understand what's going on, I may hang out here more often :) Karanacs (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

NEW PAGE proposal

Done

Incorporating concerns that the request page should allow for more turnover so that worthy articles can have a chance at a request without editors having to "camp out" at the page, we have come up with just a few changes that should allow the page to turn over faster and make it clearer to new requesters which article they can replace if they have an article with higher points.

A sample is at ~~Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions/temp,~~ (edit to add, now implemented) incorporating:

A new point count for mainpage diversity (time since similar topic appeared).
Explanation to nominators of how to choose which request to replace.
A summary table of the five requests that clearly identifies the next to be replaced.

The only new addition from Raul's point of view is that we now subtract points if a similar article appeared recently, and we need to know from Raul if this point scheme reflects the way he schedules. From the point of view of editors who frequent the page, Wrad will need help in calculating tallies and keeping the chart updated. Time for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just read through 64 kB of readable prose (added since I last commented here thirty-three hours ago) and the suggested changes look good. I have not participated too much in this discussion because it does not matter too much to me if the system changes, so long as I can make requests for February 5, 2009 and May 20, 2010. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, where do you want discussion about the new proposal? --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not right here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. A couple things.

Can the section "Replacing requests" be simplified and shortened?
How will the page be maintained? It looks like a minute-by-minute basis to keep the summary chart clean and the heading in the right place ("This article is next in line to be removed. If you have a request with a higher point value, please replace this request with yours.").
Can you clarify that points for only one item per criterion can be counted?

Thanks. —SusanLesch (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can simplify it more, please do. However, the average person will only need to look at the chart. It won't be a minute-by-minute thing either, unless this page gets really popular. If that happens, we will adapt. The more popular the page gets, the more people should be willing to update the chart. I think your last point is good as well. I'll add that in. Wrad (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, done. Feel free to fix "Adding requests". —SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes. Sorry. I just felt that they made it more confusing. It said remove "the one with the most opposes". That isn't what we want. What if something just has one or two opposes and loads of supports and nothing else has any opposes? What if the opposes have no merit to them? Too many ifs for a blanket statement like that. The changes just seemed more confusing to me, not more simple. Wrad (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Instructions are now way too long and split in two parts above and below points criteria (where are the XHTML headings for accessibility by the way?). Let's try again. If not "the one with the most opposes" what would you like to say by, "If there is a tie between two or more articles for lowest points, the request with the highest oppose percentage may be replaced."? —SusanLesch (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I just read it again and it's fine. I must have been cross-eyed last time. Wrad (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I added some headings in place of "<big>'''"s everywhere. Could be there is another way, though: two top levels, Instructions and Requests, with Adding, Points, Notes and Summary table down one level. —SusanLesch (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're there for now; now y'all have to stay on top of the chart, and keep the 30-day window updated. I suggest we let it run for a week or two before doing any new major fiddling. SusanLesch, the page organization is now in line with other FA pages, with an overview in the top box, specifics below that, and requests below that. Can I go away now? I think it will work, as the community now has a way of removing less than worthy requests, making way for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: can I go away, nope, once a Wikipedian always a Wikipedian. Just kidding. You and Wrad did a great job on editing. Well done. —SusanLesch (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Earliest date choice for articles without date connection

Resolved

I'd like to put forward the idea that when an article with no date connection is proposed the date choice should default to the next unscheduled day, but with the a note giving the option to shift back to the next available day if another article for that day is considered (thus not blocking another good article with a date connection for that day, nor forcing the proposed article without a date connection to be removed).

This would increase the turnover of the page and avoid unnecessarily long nominations for articles without date links. It also has the advantage that date-connected articles are generally proposed more than a few days in advance of the relevant date - I think it's more likely that an article with no date connection proposed for a date 30 days away will be in conflict with a date-connected article than it for the same situation if the proposal is in, say, 10 days. I see no real reason to delay the appearance on the main page unnecessarily when not waiting for a relevant date. Adacore (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. Wrad (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just put "or sooner" and let the page work itself out ... another request may come up for the earlier date. I seem to recall that happened with Coeliac disease, when it just needed any day in May for Coeliac awareness month (we were able to move it around to accomodate other requests.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This may be obvious, but just because the article is initially listed for a slot thirty days in advance does not mean it will end up sitting on this page for the entire month. In the case of Emily Dickinson, which only has one point for notability, it may be replaced today or any day by an article with more points. The instructions explicitly say that any date within thirty days can be requested; that includes both articles with date connections and ones without. María (habla conmigo) 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support making a rule about this, but I would encourage requests without date connections to be moved ahead. It does seem like it would enable the page to take on more requests. Wrad (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Adjustment to address urgent requests

Done

Anybody pinged? :-)

I've just spent an hour (at least) reading this page... It's amazing how I was away for two days and all this appeared. I am sorry not to have participated in the discussion (I was overwhelmed by other issues), but, on the other hand, I am also happy to find a finished solution. I looked at it before reading the discussion, so I experienced that funny feeling of watching a historic film which you already know how will end.

Anyway, enough rambling. I like the page. I think it works. However, it fails to address one issue which has been brought up several times: emergencies. Some requests are made a month in advance while others simply miss the train. Although I do not have in mind an effective means of eliminating the problem, I do have an idea which could severely limit it.

I suggest, instead of scheduling dates for the next thirty free days, to schedule dates for the next thirty calendar days. (A fragment of my previous proposal's addendum, for those who have read it.) I know it will limit the window somewhat, but look at the benefits:

The maximum number of days a nomination can be made in advance is reduced to thirty from anywhere between thirty-five and forty-five (depending on the closed dates), giving an advantage to dates sooner to the current date.
The same reduction to the time window also favours faster nomination turnover.
The stable number of days mitigates the "stalking requirement", as editors will know to become alert exactly thirty days before their desired date.

This is my idea; I hereby submit it for discussion.

I must say that SandyGeorgia has some points as far as the efficiency of the page is concerned. However, although her statement that if the page fares well we might be able to increase the number of nominations is reasonable, I fear that I cannot rely on it. The Director has been rather adamant about the nominations' number so far, so I can only believe it if he states himself—in writing :-)—that he will accept considering an increase in a few months' time, depending, of course, on the page's efficiency. With all this secretiveness on his part, my honourable colleagues will understand why I have to be circumspect. Waltham, The Duke of 13:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any "worthy" emergency (worthy in terms of points) can replace another request. If it's not "worthy", there's no emergency. What you are proposing amounts to allowing for rescheduling of dates already scheduled. For now, I suggest we work within Raul's constraints, and asking him to reschedule the main page is a ton of work and is not going to be well received. The more clear instructions and expanded points will make "camping out" no longer necessary, and "worthy" emergencies can get in now. And, where one person sees "secretiveness", another may see patience and a willingness to let this sort itself out. Sorry, but I won't engage anything other than AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rescheduling? I do not understand. All I am asking for is to accept today nominations until 1 August, and so on. Scheduled dates will remain locked, and I am not proposing their replacement; the side-effects of my proposal would rather be to have fewer than thirty free slots. That, as I said, would lead to faster turnover and bias the nominations slightly to ones closer to the current date, as well as make things even easier for nominators.

And an anniversary might be equally worthy to the lowest one currently amongst the five, which does not need to be an "unworthy" one; is it necessary to always have a bad egg in the nominations? We must accept that it will not always be possible to simply replace a nomination. After all, there are only five of them. And you have said yourself that no matter how many slots there will be, there will be more demand; one can easily lose a new vacancy from a faster editor with a nomination as good as their own.

As far as my comment about Raul's "secretiveness" is concerned, it is more directed to the fact that nobody seems to know much about how he selects articles, and if they do, Raul has not told them. One would think that knowing how he thinks these things would help the process, but instead I am receiving the impression of a professional secret of some sort. This is not meant to be an insult; it's just how it comes through to me. Waltham, The Duke of 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I might butt in, I'll agree that Raul's methods are somewhat mysterious, but he does a good job, keeps things well mixed up, facilitates most reasonable requests, keeps cool and keeps on top of the job. If the price for all those virtues is a little mystery, well, I'm a satisfied (if mystified) customer. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Duke, completely not following. We do accept until August 1 (30 days), and under the new instructions, the "bad eggs" should be eliminated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaahhh... I see it now, the dark source of the confusion. The sentence is: "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled." You read "for unscheduled dates within the next 30 days"; I read "for dates within the next 30 unscheduled days". I should have followed my hunch and wonder why the guideline would change with no discussion to something more complicated... Still, we have to ensure that no one will repeat my mistake. The wording is ambiguous, and we should change it now that we have located the cause of potential future problems. Ideas anyone? I'm stuck between various mediocre solutions and I could use some help.

As far as my other point is concerned, I am saying this thing exactly: it will not always be possible to replace nominations because there will not always be such "bad eggs" to replace. That, and some other accompanying issues which I describe above, indicate that not all our problems are solved just yet. Bottom line: don't give too much significance to this replacement thing—it is not infallible.

Dweller, I agree. However, this lack of knowledge does not allow us to orient the community model of decision-taking a little further towards a more Raul-like direction, which seems to be preferable (considering that people generally agree he's doing a good job). From the discussions above, it is clear that Raul's place in charge of the page is absolutely safe; he doesn't need any kind of "security". But it might just be me being too bright again :-D. Waltham, The Duke of 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Still catching up on this one Duke; don't want to make a substantial change in Raul's absence, so let me go back and see how he defined that initially, and then perhaps we can discuss that more later. Be right back :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Duke here's how Raul defined it initially; we still have that. I read it as (currently) 30 days from July 15 (last scheduled date). Are you saying you want to lower the window by making it 30 days from today? I can see lots of problems with that (if Raul has scheduled out two weeks, that only leaves us two weeks to work with, and will create too many conflicts.) If so, can we defer that discussion as we 1) see how the new page works, and 2) can discuss that with Raul after we see how this works? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I was right initially about the meaning of that sentence. Why is it so difficult for us two to communicate? :-) Waltham, The Duke of 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's userpage says he's off 'til the 8th, so unless anyone objects, I'd like to go ahead and move in the new instructions, as that will give it a trial period for us to all see how they work and whether they need further tweaking before Raul gets back. I suspect the new point assignments might get tweaked a few times, but the best way to find that out is to give 'em a test run, and we can also see if the length of the new page is overwhelming. Does anyone mind if I go ahead and move them in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it. I'm eager to give it a try. Wrad (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you're happy with it Sandy, go for it. —SusanLesch (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Woops, we just lost the last few hours work in another revert. —SusanLesch (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it. Those changes ignored one important fact. The typical user will not need to calculate anew which article to replace. He or she will be able to simply look at the chart to see what is next. Wrad (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a mid-day nap ... several of those changes weren't accurate or clear wrt points, and the instructions are in a separate page, not part of the TOC. I saved a couple of your rewrites, though. Discussion on the talk page there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things before I move it in:

I think the new links that I added make the confusion about the 30 days clear; if 30 days from the date of the last scheduled TFA ... I still suggest we give this a trial run to see if it allows for more turnover and flexibility before fiddling with the window of opportunity.
I undid some changes Susanlesch had made to the page, because they changed the point system and introduced sections into the headings.

If everyone is still OK with this, I'll implement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no don't implement... Too late. :-)

At long last, the page is clear and professional-looking. The system is a significant improvement over the previous one. However, before I declare myself content, I shall need assurances from Raul that he will consider changing the nominations' window and number in the future. Note the word, consider. If he still says now that he will refuse to go over five nominations for any reason, or that he will not discuss any change to the nominations' window, it will be truly disappointing and anti-climactic indeed. Not all problems have been solved yet. We shall see how it goes, of course, but I want to know that we can negotiate with that man. Waltham, The Duke of 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wrad (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak for Raul, but if this page works well, there should be nothing left to worry about. Not all pages can be according to editor request, but we need to make those that are fair, debatable, with the community having a voice in a way that works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: the mention above "undid", well nope I don't recall touching the point system at all (there were indeed a few different versions of the replacement process, and I'm happy to see them simplified down from 4 bullet points+ to 3). One comment. In the current version the link "Table of Contents" skips over the instructions. Headings (sections) are one way to fix that (maybe the preferred way but Sandy's right they aren't used in other featured article pages). I'm happy to have others figure out what to change. —SusanLesch (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are at the top; why should the table of contents include them? (It's the same case as with lead sections in articles.) Generally speaking, the ToC is there to provide a simple means of navigation through the nominations. The instructions are not really a part of the page—but, rather, a manual to it—and a person already acquainted with them should be allowed to simply by-pass them. Waltham, The Duke of 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Resolved

For articles which have been clearly opposed by a large group of editors, such as the Transfomers request, when can these be removed? Removing these quickly, in my opinion, would make others less frustrated and would make it easier for people to quickly replace them. JonCatalán (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean just taking them out outright without replacement? Wrad (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The way I gather (correct me if I'm wrong), if it's opposed it has zero chances of being on the main page. And so, to avoid confusion perhaps it would be better to ouright eliminate it from the page? JonCatalán (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. So if it has 80-90% opposes with solid arguments behind them then just take it out? Wrad (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, if there is any substantiated reason to oppose; it should only take 2 oppose votes to get an article removed. One vote to raise the opposition reason, another vote to 2nd the oppose. For good measure there can be a 3rd vote, but this isn't about democracy, it is about communicating that an article simply isn't suitable for that date slot. - Roy Boy 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While this is not a democracy, it should be about consensus. Setting a hard rule that 2 opposes means the request is removed is allowing for frivolous opposes, or for opposes where the majority of the commenters disagree that the oppose is valid to be given undue weight. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I excluded "frivolous opposes" with the word substantiated. While I acknowledge things are not clear cut, it should be clear that anything that begins to get opposed; there must be an alternative for that date that would not get opposed and have equal points. - Roy Boy 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not everyone opposes for the same reasons. One person may think there have been too many film articles up recently and will oppose, but others may disagree, even if a second person comes along and agrees. It isn't as clear-cut as you seem to think. And no, it's not about voting. That's why I said "substantiated". Don't just say "oppose", say why, even if it's just a few words. We don't just want a list of votes. Wrad (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the current instructions cover it; it should now always be clear to a requestor which one they can replace, and the 80% oppose will cover that. I don't see that we need to pre-emptively remove them, because that will keep you all tearing your hair out, having to contantly update the chart. Why not wait until someone wants to replace it? No hard rules; leave it as it is? I'm sure problems will emerge as you go, but a trial run will help shake this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a batch of final tweaks, and I'm ready to move it in unless anyone disagrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

30 days suggestion

Done

In light of the fact that most of us can;t think that far ahead would it be possible to add a date ticker to the page that would inform people of what the date will be 30 days from now? It would take some of the guess work out of trying to figure out if your article is just inside or outside of the needed time frame to go up here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is basically the same day of the next month. Today is July 2 (UTC), so thirty days from now is approximately August 2. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's 30 days from the last scheduled, which is July 16 + 30. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh, how about that? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

july 16 + 30 = July 46 - 31 is equal to...August 15th, I think. This sort of thing is the reason why I asked the question: I think a 30 days from now bar could help, but I wanted other opinions before making it a formal suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a line under the Summary chart; does that work? How does it look? As it stands now, it should be clear to any worthy article that a slot is open to any article with points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That works (although others may suggested various ways to improve it). Thanks. With luck, this should make it a little easier to determine whether one's intended date request is currently being accepted, and judging by thedemonhog's comments may clear up some confusion about how we time 30 days. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I suggest we let this run for a week or two before doing any date fiddling; the current 30 days is how Raul intended it, so I'm hoping these changes will be enough to get a more logical functioning page. It made no sense before! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I've already got some ideas brewing but I'm going to hold them in for awhile to see how this works in the long run. Maybe we can re-open serious debate about changes in about two weeks? Nothing wrong with suggestions, but let's agree to not change anything for a couple weeks to see how it works. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree; let it run, give it a good trial, see what emerges before tweaking anything. I'm particularly wondering if our points for recent mainpage appearances are set right, or if they will eventually need tweaking, but I think it's going to work. It's now more fair, and gives others a clear way to get in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if there's a way to keep articles with TONS of support (like Dickinson) safer even if they only have a few points. Wrad (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We shall see ... I suspect it will work, because editors will begin to oppose articles they percieve as less worthy. Before, there was no reason to oppose, since requests couldn't be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well they could, it's just that it was only slightly easier than passing a bill through the US Congress. Wrad (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage "starvation"

See Proposed changes section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way :-) Not to make changes yet, but one way to provide Dickinson a point would be (add the plus points to the current negative points):

Main page representation

A similar article recently featured on main page:^[3]
- Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points
- Within one month of requested date: –2 points
A similar article has not been featured on the main page:
- Within three months of requested date: 1 point
- Within six months of requested date: 2 points

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of something like that... I might give it two points. Wrad (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think one point will do it. How about if we say that if no one disagrees for seven days (by July 10), we'll go ahead and add it? I want to make sure we go slow on tweaking the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just tweaked my proposal above to give it two points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wrad (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What was it before? Three points?

Anyway, nice idea; it completes the safeguard system for topic variation. The process is now largely automatic, if I might use the term. In other words, more dependent on process than on people—which is good, as the latter may change without affecting the former. Waltham, The Duke of 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re, what was it before, it doesn't exist. I see it as less automatic; there is now incentive to oppose and for community involvement to sort out ties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is what is a similar article? The same goes for the T-26, even if the T-26 might not be as popular of a choice - you can't cherrypick which articles will get points and which articles wont. The T-26 has less to do with the Russian-Circassian War and Winfield Scott Hancock than Emily Dickinson has to do with To Kill a Mockingbird. It seems this system is just open to people playing favorites - I really don't mind, but it closes the door to getting an article on the main page for some articles indefinitely. The 'War' category is one of the most plentiful and it will be impossible to get an article on the main page because people will claim they are all related, just because they are in the same FA category. While, Emily Dickinson doesn't get this distinction because most people support it more than the T-26 - it's just favoritism. JonCatalán (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the article The Quatermass Experiment is also in the same category as movies, and so if both T-26 and Emily Dickinson fall under lack of main page diversity, so should this. JonCatalán (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon, the instructions already state very specifically that those points are not to be determined by FA category (See the note!). Please see my post in the "Consensus before change" section below. Wrad (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Done

Can we archive now up the NEW PAGE proposal (1–8), to make way for new questions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah sure. Lots of kilos up there. Wrad (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the archive system; you want to do it? I announced the new page at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I don't know how to work around that bot either. Wrad (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a try now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas page

Given SandyGeorgia's improvements to the request page, and advertising it on WT:FAC for a reasonable trial run, I am submitting my page not as a alternative system (though eventually that is my hope); but rather a presentation of several good concepts that have been proposed and archived.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Tiered Queues

I've made the mistake of naming it something specific, but if everyone dislikes Tiered Queues I certainly hope there are other aspects to it that acquire support and may be implemented down the road. Feedback would be appreciated. - Roy Boy 00:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that look that seems reasonably organized. the question is whether or not Raul will go for it as there are more than 5. I figure he shouldn't have to look at anymore than those that are already signed by the TFA Assistants. ☻TheCookieMaker Talk! 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trial run

The current situation between T-26 and Emily Dickinson, in terms of points debated, provides a perfect example of how the community can now sort these choices ... there are several debateable issues there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What are similar articles? There is too much ambiguity. This needs to be worked out here. Are articles on cannon and a type of tank similar articles? How about a basketball player and a runner? How about a character in one film and a total different film? Also with the summer olympics coming up, I don’t see why there can’t be a couple of Olympic sports or Chinese related articles during that 2 week period. The Summer Olympics come every 4 years and this the 1st in China. (Halgin (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

It should be worked out with discussion, consensus, too hard to nail down in a formula (for example, your sports example); community wants input, you've got it. Carry on the debates and use that to decide consensus. Isn't that the control and input you all requested? If you make it all by rules, it can be done by a bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's up to the editors to decide. We can't really spell out all the specifics on the instructions. We depend on consensus when it comes to this. Consensus will be easier to reach once this page gains some experience and some precedents are set. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's why I think the Tank and Dickinson are a good trial run; if Dickinson goes and the Tank stays, the point system needs tweaking, since most editors seem to concur that Dickinson is more worthy. (And we can tweak it by adding points for long time since similar on mainpage.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that this isn't the end of all things. People can always appeal to Raul if their article doesn't fit into the somewhat narrow scope of this page. Wrad (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you recommend this, Wrad; it's explicitly discouraged in the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that deducting points for having one article in the same section of contents from the FA page is too restrictive. If the section of contents from the FA page is used for deducting point, then many more articles are need before I support deducting points. I don’t want to see 3 films, battles, authors, books, cities, hurricanes, …etc, on the main page in a couple of weeks. I got no problem with a tank and battle in which that tank is not used being or an author and book they didn’t write being on the main page within a couple of weeks. I don’t want the request page to say “we have had a warfare article on the main page for a while” when there are 2 in the queue. Even if I don’t think they are related. I’m stick of the rules changing when I put a request here. However, I want rules and guidelines that are fair and I understand. Halgin (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Points aren't deducted for being in the same WP:FA category, and the instructions clearly state that (they are defined more narrowly). If you want rules that are black and white, then we can set up a bot to do this and apply no common sense (as in the China Olympics example); if you want community involvement, you discuss and come to consensus as with everything else on Wiki. The method of assigning points is likely to need tweaking, and it may take some time to get it right, but all of these items are still open to human discussion, which is what people asked for. It may take some time to fine-tune how you all want to define "similar on the mainpage". More interesting, in terms of past criticism of this page, there are several that can be easily replaced now, but I don't see the community banging down the doors to replace them, so something is working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there going to be enough people watching this page now to make sure the chart stays accurate as articles get replaced? I see Wrad, Karanacs, Duke and thedemonhog weighing in regularly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident it will be fine. This page doesn't change too often. It may get more hectic, but I think that will only happen gradually. Wrad (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it too late to ask for a clarification? I don't see any discussion of how the scheuling of articles after the nomination is made affects scores. That is, OK, the Dickenson article has 1 point. But let's say Raul schedules Robert Browning (not a FA, just needed a poet) for July 19. Does the Dickenson score go down, or is it "grandfathered"?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That came up, and has already been archived. In that case, the points would be adjusted, not grandfathered. The idea is that the requests should reflect scheduling, and running two poets back to back isn't likely to happen. I don't follow the scheduling that closely, but it would surprise me if Raul would randomly schedule one poet when he knows another is in the queue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering what "Within two weeks of requested date" means. Buc (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you state your question more clearly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus before change

When it comes to debatable point changes such as the similar article/two week rule, please don't change the chart unless there is a clear consensus for such a change. There is clearly no consensus for subtracting anything from Dickinson right now. We are absolutely not marking it off by FA category (It already says that in the instructions!). There are only 28 FA categories. There are only about 30 days in a month. Beyond that, not every category even has articles suitable for TFA. Therefore, if we mark off everything that has had something in the same FA category as TFA within the month, we will be marking off everything and using this to count points will become absolutely useless. It is intended to be much narrower than that, as determined by a consensus of editors. Until such a consensus is reached, the article in question should not be docked, only marked as in dispute. How does that sound? Wrad (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As we discuss things, precedents will be set for categories we don't want too much of. I have already seen clear precedents set on this page by a consensus of editors who don't want too many film articles or video game articles too close together. I have seen no such consensus for Military or Literature articles as a whole. That precedent remains to be set. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we just abolish those points, but continue to leave notes about when recent similar articles appeared on the main page? People may still choose to oppose based on this and we will be rid of the disagreements concerning points distribution per topic diversity. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to give up on them so soon. We're still trying this new system and need to give people time to get used to it. Wrad (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad. Give consensus a chance to work, tweaks will be needed over time, the only important (in the sense of urgency) line in the chart is the next to be removed, so you have time to work on issues and come to consensus. For example, if I see that Dickinson is jeopardized, I will enter an oppose on the tank because I find the date connection to be too loose, so I think this system is working just fine. And I still find it very interesting that although we've clearly identified a negative-pointer next to be removed, the community isn't banging down the doors, in spite of the announcement at WT:FAC, so again, it works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This all seems like a big misunderstanding to me. Noble Story docked JonCatalan's July 17th nom for diversity, because he didn't understand the criteria quite right. Jon then seems to have grown concerned and brought up the same point for Dickinson, only to have Noble Story come back and say that he'd just realized he'd been in the wrong and interpreting the rule too broadly. We all just need to calm down and realize that this page is still growing. If your nom doesn't make it here, then you can always send a request to Raul. I've seen him approve things like that time and time again. If your nom dies here, that is not the end. We just ask that you be patient with us while this page develops. Wrad (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Sandy, I can only speak for myself. I'm sitting on the two FA's I'd like to see be TFA's, waiting for the logical anniversary dates. It is possible others feel the same way about the FA's they've worked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood; I'm responding to the long-standing claim that editors can't get a slot. We've got one and no one is taking it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because the only articles I want to nominate don't come up in relevance until September :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, as Wrad said, this whole todo seems to have come because of my original action of deducting points of T-26, and then JonCatalan doing the same for Dickinson. I think the consensus is pretty clear that both were wrong, and it should probably be reverted back to their original points. However, having done enough damage, I'll leave that to someone else. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already fixed them both. No big deal. Wrad (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie and the 80% threshold

Resolved

"If a requested article has over 80% oppose votes (including the nominator) it may be replaced regardless of its point value."

Why do we count the nominator, and is the 80% too high? Some editors have expressed that they are reluctant to replace another request; why not lower the threshold ( 2/3 maybe?) and automatically remove requests that are mostly opposed, so subsequent requestors have an opening without having to bump someone else, which they may find rude? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If we count nominator, it currently has 2 Supports, but doesn't make the 80% threshold in spite of 5 Opposes (5/7 = 71%). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm having second thoughts about what I posted; if we lower the threshold, we could see large WikiProjects coming in to oppose the competition. hmmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal, keep the nominator, but lower the threshold to 75%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, isn't that kinda changing the rules in the middle of the game? I'd support SandyGeorgia's proposal if it were not retroactive.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I say it was retroactive? (On a similar proposal above, I suggested we wait until July 10 to make changes.) The Simpson is only an example for us to evaluate the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need to set a date in the future to implement. Wrad (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't say it wasn't, and so I misinterpreted. Then I think 75 percent is a more realistic figure to say to Raul that the article so does not have the support of the community that we don't even want to present it to you (of course, Raul can list it in spite of deletion/replacement, his privilege).

And I'm sorry that I didn't notice the July 10 thing, there has been an amazing amount of text generated on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So, can we agree to implement both proposed changes on July 10 if they gain consensus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For nominations made on or after July 10, yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's too complicated. Just apply it completely on that date. Incidentally, though why do we need the change? The Simpsons article is already next to go even without it. Wrad (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad; at the point we apply it, it's retroactive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We need it because other editors have said elsewhere that they don't relish the idea of removing someone else's post, feels like a dog with rabies; we need to do that for them (open up the obvious slots) to make the page less cutthroat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So a removal of articles with a consensus of opposition without waiting for a replacement. How about doing away with step one completely and adding that "Articles with a consensus in opposition will be removed after a minumum of "X" days." or something. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would accomplish the same thing, but would be subject to more problematic debate; the 75% takes it out of the realm of consensus, so you don't have to fight over it, no questions about whether there is consensus, it's automatic, may be no need to wait a number of days? Not sure what's best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is a consensus for something not to be TFA, it shouldn't be TFA, should it? Why not automatically remove it. I think someone else brought this up a few days ago. We'd just need to allow enough time for people to comment... Wrad (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see, yes a minimum amount of days to make sure there is a chance to comment. How about 48 hours? Shall I add that to the proposal below? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just something that will have articles removed (not put in line for replacement) if there is a consensus against them after two days. People seem pretty quick to speak their mind here. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we're talking about applyig it retroactively, should we add a note to the mainpage so requestors won't be caught unawares? We could link to proposed changes (below): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It will get us more voices in here. Wrad (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Done, no objections

To be implemented on July 10, retroactive, pending consensus:

Main page representation

A similar article recently featured on main page:^[4]
- Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points
- Within one month of requested date: –2 points

Add the following text:

A similar article has not been featured on the main page:
- Within three months of requested date: 1 point
- Within six months of requested date: 2 points

and add a new item,

Contributor history

The article requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor(s) of the article requested: 1 point

and,

Adding requests

Change 80% to 75%, anyone can remove after two days :

1) If a requested article has over 75% oppose votes (counting the nominator as support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it will be removed regardless of its point value.

Discussion

Do you mean at least 48 hours after the request? Buc (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support both per my reasoning discussed in sections above (we need to be able to open up slots more often, so requestors don't have to feel cutthroat in eliminating them, and we need to better reflect mainpage diversity needs), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't see why it would be too complicated to exempt, by name, the (at most five) articles in place on July 9 at 2359. For those, it would be changing the rules in the middle of the game. Even though all of this is advisory, Raul can etc. I'm not saying I'm against it, but I just don't see why it is too complicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Further commentBy the way I would change "(including the nominator)" to "(counting the nominator as a support vote)" otherwise it reads kinda like the nominator has to oppose for the 75 percent to be triggered.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Change made above. Disagree on retroactive. First, it won't change anything currently on the page; second, we've now announced it, so they won't be caught unawares. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Support, then. I don't feel like splitting hairs. I would delete the word "implied", though. Less room for arguments. Either way, though. Sorry if I seem about two steps behind you guys on a lot of things, there is a LOT to absorb here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    Implied removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support the general idea but not retroactive. (To illustrate, one of two nominations I made here has had the system changed out from under it two times this year. Three changes in rules is too many don't you think?) -—SusanLesch (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No; it won't change anything currently on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see anything on the page that it would effect currently, so what's the point of not making the effect retroactive if there's no effect anyway? Wrad (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't know what will be on the page on 10 July. Then how about adding notice of this change in place now as part of the last rules change. Then the nominators between now and then can add this factor to their balancing acts. -—SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We've notified them of the discussion already, on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to a big font. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I can't see it looking quickly but maybe other people can. It belongs in "Calculating points" -> "Main page representation". —SusanLesch (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather have it on this page, not a subpage, and anyone adding a new article will go to the summary section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, but I still think that the "similar article" points are sketchy. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree they're sketchy, but that's by design; we want to encourage discussion and that it be based on consensus rather than formula. Perhaps a formula will emerge over time ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking we might want to maintain a list of narrow categories that commonly recur and that the community has already begun to watch out for. Film, television, and Video games are three categories I've seen regularly opposed on diversity grounds, so we could list those in our little footnote as examples. It won't cover everything, but we can add to the list if w see other things recurring again and again. Wrad (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think, before we fiddle, feedback from Raul would help in this area (and he's out 'til the 8th). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Since I always come in late, I'll leave the reasons to the editors above. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Support both – Noble Story's arguments fully cover my position. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Reiterate support for all proposals. I suspect there will be a small amount of gaming to get the extra point, but as one point has not yet proven to be a major prize to be fought for, we can see how it goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on significant contributors

Done (wording added to proposal section above)

I'd also be in favor of adding points for noms from primary contributors who have not had an article of theirs on the main page yet. I would personally define a primary contributor as someone in the top three on the edit count. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
How do you check the edit count?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This website. Try it! It's pretty cool. Wrad (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I would suggest that the point be given if a) primary contributor per Wrad, AND b) has not successfully proposed an article for TFA. Reason I'm phrasing it that way is that there was an article I am second place in that was a TFA, but I had no part in proposing it for TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all opposed to this idea, but do you all realize that checking this will be almost prohibitive, and we will just have to take their word for it? There's really no way to check the top three contributors on every single past TFA to verify this; it would be an impossible task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, contributors #2 and #3 are not necessarily that involved with the article. If this is added, it should probably just say "significant contributor(s)". –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to take people's word for it unless it is an obvious lie. I think it is important enough to give every editor a stronger hope that at least one of their article has a good chance of making TFA if they work at it. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Contributor history

The significant contributor(s) have not had a previous TFA: 1 point
- Support the general idea. For a weird example, Raul chose an article that could have been any day, not the one I chose as primary contributor for a specific date. So yes, generally except in unforseen circumstances like everything can be. —SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  What Raul chooses is somewhat independent from the mechanism we use to refine what we offer as choices to him; he has other factors to consider. This is only for our purposes, to sort out what others consider "worthy" requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  Yes. I'm not worried about it. Actions and interaction can change points, both here and in the new rules for representation (clearly point totals fluctuate). —SusanLesch (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support, no problem, but if it becomes prohibitively difficult to verify and enforce, it should be dropped quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  We can always use this tool to double check. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support – It will boost morale amongst some of our best editors. I am supporting at the risk of the system becoming complicated; all has been very well so far, but I think suggestions should stop now. Waltham, The Duke of 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed alternative language

Contributor history

The proposer of the article has not previously successfully proposed an article for TFA, and is a significant contributor(s) of the article being proposed. 1 point.

I propose the above language as more to the point and less likely to provoke frantic searches through histories.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Prefer consistent terminology (this is a request page):

The article requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor(s) of the article requested. 1 point.

Comment. I have no idea what "had a TFA" means. I'd prefer my more specific language.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually oppose your language; who requests a TFA is not relevent to "resource starvation" and has nothing to do with the editors who wrote and nominated the article at FAC. I linked the proposed wording to make it more clear. Successfully proposing a TFA isn't what we're aiming for IMO; we're aiming to encourage people who write FAs that they will eventually get a slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not stick to the one issue, and leave the "rookie" part out?. Just: "The requestor of the article is a significant contributor(s) of the article being requested. 1 point."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not following you at all. The point was to avoid resource starvation, by giving FA writers who haven't appeared on the main page an extra point towards their article. I have no idea what you're proposing now. We're not concerned with whether the requestor is a contributor; we care if the contributors have never had a mainpage slot, regardless of who is requesting the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
How does resource starvation feed into it? I'm not sure that I completely get your point?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason for adding this point is to help assure that FA writers and nominators who have never had an article appear on the mainpage can have a chance. Resource starvation is about no one being perpetually denied. Who enters the request here isn't relevant to that argument; it's who authored or nominated the article, as in significant contributors. We want them to feel ecouraged to write FAs, knowing they have a shot at the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, then, I'll support SandyGeorgia's above modified language. I have to rely on SandyGeorgia's vast practical experience on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Contributor history The requestor of the article has not previously successfully requested an article for TFA, and is a significant contributor(s) of the article being requested. 1 point.~~;

I don't know who added this proposal, but I disagree with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well; the proposed courtesy towards primary contributors should not hinge on whether they request TFA for the article. Waltham, The Duke of 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It was me. In view of my reassessment of SandyGeorgia's modified proposal, I'll withdraw it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the final wording to the proposed section above, to consolidate for newcomers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Article without a specific date?

Resolved

Is it possible for an article, which has absolutely not date special to it (believe me - I've tried), to be on here or an even harder question, which date? bsrboy (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Earth and Emily Dickinson don't have anything special about their dates... What article do you have in mind? Wrad (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Exmoor. bsrboy (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was made a National Park in 1954. That would make next year a 55th anniversary if you could find the exact date. Wrad (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I tried to do for ages, but I couldn't find the day or month. bsrboy (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This site says October. Wrad (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

19th October, thanks! Should I propose this year or next year for the 55th anniversary? bsrboy (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could propose this year as the 54th anniversary or next year as the 55th. Either date would get you the same amount of points. Wrad (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a note of it! bsrboy (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest changing the instructions

Resolved

The final paragraph of the instruction reads:

f there are already five articles requested and if the article that you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it, giving an explanation of how the points are awarded and the total. Reviewers will debate to determine which article best fits the date.

Since the removal/replacement has nothing to do with the date, am I correct that the final sentence is a hangover from an earlier version and should be changed?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please the current wording and your proposed wording side by side, to make it easier on the rest of us to agree or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would simply propose changing "Reviewers will debate to determine which article best fits the date." to "If there is any dispute, reviewers will determine whether or not the replacement was proper." I'm very sorry, I don't know how to do a side by side. Please feel free to edit my post.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Change:

Reviewers will debate to determine which article best fits the date.

to:

If there is any dispute, reviewers will debate to determine consensus on which article should be replaced.

Support as proposer.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one disagrees, we can go ahead and change this; it's not a change as much as a clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. I'd rather not introduce the word "dispute" at all. Maybe say, "In the case of multiple requests, reviewers will debate to achieve consensus..."? Also, I agree the sentence was outta place and that someone can just fix it. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

TFA/Requests/Pending template

Maybe I'm slow, but what is the function exactly of the reminder template at the top of this page? Is it just for people to see what would come next after this 30 day period? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's so y'all can fight things out in advance when there is a pending conflict; it allows greater use of the talk page to sort things in advance. For example, if Casliber had mentioned the Sirius date in advance, others would have known. Raul wants five requests at a time; that doesn't mean you all can't do more advance work behind the scenes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I see. I guess I'll go make use of it then. :) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the date for Yao Ming to his birthday of Sept 12. At present, only articles from Aug 16 to Sept 15 should go in there, it is for the next 30 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Literal minds :-) Honestly, the idea is that you all should discuss articles in advance, without bugging Raul. You don't know how far out Raul will schedule next time, so go ahead and add August 8. Just don't let the template go beyond 30 days, or it will get out of control; history and experience on this page shows it could quickly grow to 100 and become useless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK. I reverted it to August 8, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to have a vehicle for useful talk page deliberation, without cluttering the five-request notion that Raul needs. Adjust as needed. If it grows to 50 or 100 articles, it won't be useful; that's why I said 30 days, but leaving off Aug 8 isn't necessary, because Raul may not schedule that far out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I take your point. Besides, even if it is within the first 30 day window, it might be helpful to put it in the template while awaiting a vacancy on the requests page. Get some feedback early.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Next step

The progress here has been great; you now have a page that gives the community a better means of providing better (well vetted) requests to Raul, allowing for more community input and discussion while making it easier for requestors to see where and how to add/replace. Replacement should be easier now, and go to more worthy articles, so requestors don't have to "camp out". And yet, even with a negative-pointer clearly highlighted in the chart, we've not seen an issue yet, and consensus has worked well. The next step towards refinement might be to see how this does over the long term, by collecting data. How often are the requests used by Raul, and can those that end up not used provide feedback as to how to tweak the point system to account for other factors? Wrad, maybe you can begin to think of how you can track success under the new point system? How often are requests successful and how much of the mainpage is Raul scheduling by request? That would be good data to have under the new point system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you proposing to track past data, or to start with the effective implentation of the changes on July 16?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Start from July 16 on (the previous system made no sense, because it was a matter of who got here first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The old system made sense to me! :) I can track that beginning when we implement the new changes we want to make. Wrad (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a page something like Today's featured article/community candidates with the following information:

Date proposed for, name of article (if you want to be fancy, include the photo and blurb), points calculation, category, whether or not adopted by Raul, and if not adopted and it appeared as TFA later, date of such appearance. Only articles which made it through the process would appear, those replaced, or deleted under the 75% rule, would not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to do # proposed, # approved, # disapproved but made it anyway, and # that never made it. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Percent of TFAs scheduled by request (including the occasional extraordinary request at Raul's talk page, like big big anniversaries: I remember a 200-year anniversary and a 100-yr one that came up on his talk page rather than here, can't remember the articles though ... example, Wrad, St Patricks never came here, right?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever data you think will be helpful. Still, it seems to me having the raw data available someplace would be helpful in case someone wants to research something unanticipated.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Important note: if a subpage is created for statistics (a reasonable thing to do, I think), attention should be given to proper capitalisation in its name. You have no idea how annoying I find the informality of requests with a small r. Would a move be too fussy? :-) Waltham, The Duke of 21:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Diversity questions

Hello. I was about to support Wrad's Earth nomination (discussion) but stopped because of Sandy's oppose in favor of Sirius. I'd support that too if Sirius replaces Earth as Sandy suggests. If Sirius replaces Earth, then explain in the Summary chart why the star Cygnus X-1 on 26 June (one month plus one day) which Wrad is using for timing is not "diversity questioned" and is good main page representation when you have Minneapolis (discussion) nom for 20 July tagged "diversity questioned" because of History of Minnesota on 11 May (two months plus nine days). Possibly the difference is one of scale--space is a big place. Thanks. —SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought up Sirius because Casliber mentioned it at WT:FAC as having a significant July date, but if he isn't worried about fighting for it over here, neither am I. It's what prompted me to add the template to this talk page (so others would be aware of pending dates). Generally speaking, until we know more about how Raul views the diversity issue, the "questioned" is only questioned, nothing more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the diversity questioned bit from Minneapolis. It looks to me like most editors don't mind two months too much if it's a 150th anniversary and I think we have a consensus. Wrad (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me; I think as you all observe (going forward) Raul's scheduling versus our new point scheme, you'll get a better sense of how to gauge mainpage diversity. I do think it would be nice to leave Earth for Earth Day, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I changed the Summary chart from "disputed" in favor of the word "questioned" for Emily Dickinson. If that nom reaches consensus maybe that note can go away too. Thanks. —SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all disputes have been resolved! There aren't any comments left about them. Wrad (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, I found a date in the Earth Day article you might use effectively: "An equinox in astronomy is that moment in time (not a whole day) when the center of the Sun can be observed to be directly "above" the Earth's equator, occurring around March 20 and September 23 each year." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is the 22nd this year.[4]--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Date relevancy: strong vs. weak

Howdy folks. I don't follow this page, but while browsing, an idea for your point system occurred to me. It seems that a "strong" date relevancy should be worth an extra point or two, compared to a comparatively "weak" date connection. A "strong" relevancy should be an obvious and important connection, like "Christmas" on December 25 or "Earth" on Earth Day. A "weak" connection would be less immediately apparent, but still relevant enough to merit one point, like "Colt Single Action Army" on October 26 (date of the famous Gunfight at the O.K. Corral), to pick a random weak connection. Such a system would give extra weight to strong date connections while still allowing less important date connections to play a small role in scheduling the Main Page.

Just an idea; feel free to adapt or ignore it. —Kevin Myers 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There are so many other factors to consider in mainpage scheduling that we don't need to give undue weight to a "strong" connection, which Raul isn't likely to pass over anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If Raul "isn't likely to pass over" a certain "strong" connection, then extra weight given it in the point system could not really be called "undue", since it would actually have been the decisive factor. I think what you're essentially saying is that Raul will compensate for date connections that are underrated in the current point system. That works, although a point system that awards extra points for factors that Raul "isn't likely to pass over" would be more in line with the intention of the point system. But if folks want to defer consideration of the relative value of the date connections to Raul, I'm sure he'll continue to do a good job with it. —Kevin Myers 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the current system already does what you're basically asking for and here's why: If the date connection is challenged, that is noted in the chart. That article, if it had only one point with the date, will be listed as having 0 or 1 points. This is a weaker position than an article that has 1 solid point would have. Thus, that article would be replaced before the solid 1 point article. Basically, it already works the way it would even if we added your suggestion. Wrad (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, presently, the footnote says "For example Earth on Earth Day." as the sole guidance to the editor. How about saying "For example Earth on Earth Day, or the anniversary of the subject's birthday or date of death, the first publication or display of the subject, or the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wrad; it already works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not proposing changing anything, just giving more specific guidance to editors, so maybe they aren't put off offering contributions because they think the rules are confusing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit more, per your suggestion,[5] but ... instructions don't usually get read anyway, so I didn't want to make them too much longer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is not going to be read, let's go to town on it! :) Your text is fine. Better to give just a couple of examples as you did. It will be obvious that a date of death will also qualify, etc. etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The likelihood it will be read decreases as length goes up; I've never seen any indication that nominators fail to establish date relevancy. If anything, they go the opposite direction, by claiming tenuous relevancy. I don't think more verbiage is needed or will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said, your text is fine. I guess what I'm trying to avoid is the tenuous connection, like Wrad said above. Resolved, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes - Main page representation

Resolved

– Dweller is a thicko

--Dweller (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the proposed amend is simply giving double weighting to the existing scoring. Or am I reading this wrong? --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It gives more weight to topic variation and encourages the featuring on the Main Page of subjects seen relatively rarely... That's how I am reading it.

(One could argue that, since you are reading this in a different way than me, then yes, you are reading it wrong. :-D) Waltham, The Duke of 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I'm unsure what we're disagreeing on. The proposed change gives additional weighting to the existing scoring for that element of the scoring. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scrap all this. I've worked out what it was that my idiot-thick brain wasn't registering. Sorry for wasting your time, Your Grace. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TFA/Requests/Pending

It would seem a good idea to transclude this page onto this project space page. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that give it more status than it deserves? All it is, I think, is a statement of intent by editors to nominate the articles stated. It is a useful resource, because if your article isn't going to have higher points on August 18 than Noble gas, you won't nominate it for that date. Perhaps a note on the project page that this is to be found here, with a link, would be better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about "status" (does any of this have any "status" beyond being a repository for suggestions from which Raul can pick and choose?) but as it's a natural extension of it, it seems daft to separate the two. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The stated purpose though is to generate discussion on talk page. I guess it makes sense to put it there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, my idea was to keep it out of Raul's way, while using it to generate more discussion here among regulars and pagewatchers. If you add it to the main page, and it grows to 50 or 100, we're back to where we don't want to be. Give it a chance to work here first and decide later if it's worthy of transcluding to the main page? Someone needs to format it better, too; I reached the max of my knowledge on how to make those thingies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, lol, know what you mean. I also struggle with templates and "thingies"! If it's just as a test to see how it goes, fine. Longer term (if it works) I think it serves only partial purpose being here; many people will visit the project page without viewing its accompanying talk page. And Raul's a smart enough cookie to be able to overlook anything in the template box (which, incidentally, can presumably be set to display just the first x elements it contains). --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's at least get it (and the rest of the page, considering all the new changes) working better before moving it in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Btw, I looooove what you've done with the curtains. I'll bring you over some tea and a tray of sandwiches on moving day. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the new Proposals subpage. Is this really necessary? Essentially, this gives two different places to hold the exact same type of discussion, which seems to me to be subverting the process a bit. Say the merits of these two articles are discussed here and one is chosen. Does that earn it an automatic spot in the main 5 when the time comes? Will nominators assume that if their article passes muster on the talk page it shouldn't be discussed again on the main page (or heaven forbid, removed, because after all people already said on the talk page that it was a good date connection). I foresee a lot of issues with this. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that no binding decision may take place on the talk page... Discussion here should be strictly preparatory, and usually only be about date clashes. After all, there are more arguments to be presented on the main requests page by other parties, arguments which must be considered. Waltham, The Duke of 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

August 8, for discussion

Yao Ming and Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. Discussion of their points and date connection? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the solution is simple: No date connection is described in either article, so we should be able to put them on any date. Although... I think the connection both sides want is the China connection for the Olympics. Wrad (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; it's a trial, addressing Karanacs' question above. Can the pending template be useful? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that one or both may be politically motivated. I think we have an issue here which we may not be able to settle with rules. My comment above was slightly facetious. I think Yao Ming, as, I believe, a Chinese Olympic athlete past and present. Given the preoccupation with some Tibetan groups for ~~spoiling the party~~, er, using the world focus on the Beijing Olympics to promote their own ~~agenda~~ concerns, I wonder if one or both nominators is not putting the concerns of an outside agenda above those of WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it's interesting; that may become a Raul decision, but how would these be put forward on the page and how would they work within the point system? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, neither are linked to the date. Perhaps there should be a prerequisite that there be an obvious link to a date before an article is added? It would be easy to confirm because then an article would just need to be opened to find the date. Gary King (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a VERY close call, in my view. If Yao is on the Chinese team, his nominator will fight for the point for date relevance re Olympics. The Tibet people will say it is obviously a basic topic for a twelve year old's research and try for that point. Then there will be arguments over the "minicategory" it fits in. We had Moe Berg, a sports figure, at the end of June; we had the Russian-Circassian war, an Asian History topic, just a day or so ago, both are arguable for minitopics and make it likely neither will gain or lose points. It could come down to the rookie nominator's point, and I bet someone out there is figuring out who the actual nominator is going to be!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, do either of them highlight any weakness in the point system, and since they are likely to come down to a Raul decision anyway, what about them possibly taking two slots on the page? These are meta-issues for you all to consider :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like them taking up two slots for one date because that takes two slots away from other articles that could have stronger ties to the date. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should not do anything in advance. Let them be nominated and deal with it. Otherwise it isn't a true test of the system. And as you say, Raul may well consider other factors in his decision. Surprised they are waiting, after all, the Simpsons movie is still at -2; if they are reluctant to do a replacement, then all this may reflect more civility than we could otherwise have expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(unind) I think the answer is simple. The Olympics lasts more than one day, so have them on two different days during the Olympics. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's the likely solution, but that is Raul's call, I guess. I think we should maintain the process, and if both candidates come forward for Aug 8 (the day of the Opening Ceremony, which is what they want), deal with it according to the rules that were exhaustively discussed. I think this is an excellent test case, a situation where the requestors will likely treat the process seriously and put it through its paces. I see little point in calling it a draw before the process really starts!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting case, as are the comments above. The template is already working, I guess. General warning: I realise that this is an opportunity to fine-tune the point system, but one should be careful about added layers of complexity; I strongly believe that consensus and the ultimate decision-maker, the Director, are sufficient to handle such cases as this one. So much effort has gone into keeping the requests page manageable in terms of nominations, and it would be a pity if it became unmanageable in terms of by-laws. (I say this spurred by Mr King's initial proposition, but I am not commenting on it specifically. Instruction creep occurs naturally.)

On the nominations, now... Do you people think that a deal could happen where the best candidate would take 8 August and the other party would settle for 24 August (the date of the Closing Ceremony)? Or are these two too close together to be allowed? Waltham, The Duke of 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends how strongly they feel about it. Again, Wrad and SandyGeorgia have gone to considerable pains (with the rest of us in minor roles) to set up this shining new system. I'd like to see how it works in practice. If we are overwhelmed with meatpuppets or something, then see what happens. We can discuss consolation prizes later, Raul concurring.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not think that those articles were too close together, personally. One is about history and one is about a modern athlete. We would not normally count down for that. Wrad (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, Wehwalt; I just wanted to register this little idea of mine before forgetting it. Wrad, I plead guilty for not even looking at the articles. Asian connections are certainly insufficient to justify exclusion on grounds of temporal proximity (especially when the period concerned is three weeks). Not counting special occasions, like the Olympic Games. Waltham, The Duke of 23:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's hold our breath and wait for the requests. For all we know, someone else is out there with a six pointer for August 8 that will trump this whole thing. The template isn't mandatory, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Olympics lasts more than one day, so have them on two different days during the Olympics. The opening ceremony is on the 8th. Since there are no athletic events on that day, a non athletic request related to the Olympics maybe better for that day. Olympic Basketball at the 2008 Games will be held from August 9 to August 24. So August 9 is as good date for Yao Ming as the 8th. Halgin (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the requestor for Yao Ming will pick up on that one. But I doubt it. I think it's gonna be political. But again, I think we should hold off and await the request.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I (hopefully) will be the nominator of Yao Ming on the main page. I don't know why exactly I waited to replace the Simpsons article. Oh well. Anyway, the date relevancy is obvious. Of course, the article can be placed on the front page at any time during the Olympics, although the opening ceremony (and the closing ceremony) would be the most important dates. I would say I believe Yao to be somewhat more relevant to the Olympics than Tibet in the Ming Dynasty, although that's just my opinion. Anyway, I'll be waiting for an open slot now. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I'm currently working in China. I just checked, and Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is one of the (relatively few) wikipedia pages blocked here. This means that anyone in China during the olympics who clicks on it will then be locked out of wikipedia for five minutes. I realise saying this is a reason for not featuring it might be objectionable, but I believe that, given Wikipedia is normally completely blocked in China, it would be sensible to stay to articles which don't lock Chinese readers out during the two weeks when they're most likely to be using the site. Yao Ming is fine, though, of course. Adacore (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that should affect us at all. I think both articles deserve time during the Olympics. I'm not going to be influenced by an official Chinese view or any other political viewpoint on this. Nothing personal, I just don't want this influencing us. Wrad (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much the viewpoint I expected, and to be honest I don't really disagree. I was just pointing it out. It does bring up an interesting (amusing) point though - which is the more political action - choosing it as a TFA, or not choosing it as a TFA? Adacore (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, before you said that, I was in favor of showing Yao Ming at the beginning and Tibet at the end of the Olympics, and my feelings haven't really changed. In order to pass as FAs, the articles have to be neutral anyway, so there shouldn't be anything political about them. Wrad (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of FAs that not been TFAs

I've been looking for articles to nominate for upcoming TFAs, but it seems that so many of them have already been featured, and it's really annoying to check the talk page of every single one just to see if it has been a TFA before or not. I was wondering if there was a list of featured articles that have not been TFAs in the past, and if not, if one could be made to help out the nomination process. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a page somewhere, but it's not always accurate. You can find the definitive accurate list by looking at WP:FA in edit mode. Alternately, you could help Buc maintain the page he started; I don't remember the page name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Woody (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not in sync with WP:FA, frequently wrong, perhaps Dream out loud can help maintain it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't TFAs on WP:FA supposed to be bolded by a bot? Wrad (talk)

Yes, but that doens't work on every browser (doesn't work on mine). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Or mine) but if you look at this you will see the template {{FA/BeenOnMainPage}} which as Sandy says, is the definitive list. Woody (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird, is there some way we can fix WP:FA so it will work on all browsers? It is a pretty important page. Wrad (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And while I've got your collective attention :-)) The bot that bolds the mainpage entries at WP:FA breaks frequently. I literally have to check it daily, and notify the bot owner each time it breaks, so extra eyes on that task are always welcome. There is a mountain of tedious tasks to tend to in the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it happen before and cause some drama :P . So who's in charge of the bot? Wrad (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look in the page history, I can never spell his name right, and you have to go from his bot talk page to his real talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

← WP:FA2008 says if articles have hit main page or not. Gary King (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not instantly up to date as WP:FA is, and only 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The records go back to 2003. I think main page stats are updated every 24 hours. Gary King (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

November 14

I see Animaniacs has been placed in the template for November 14, well beyond the end of the sixty day period. Should it be removed or tolerated, as at present there are only six suggestions in the box?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. There has to be a limit, and when the range comes around for that article, it can just be added in then. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree; there has to be a limit, or we run into the same problem this page had historically. When you get to 50 or 100, it's no longer useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 29

Another use for the template; who added July 29? If it's a 50th anniversary, why doesn't it have enough points to go on the page now, rather than in the template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on scaredy-cats :) ! Don't be shy about replacing nominations! Wrad (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, but I already have a nominatation on the page. It is the 50 anniversary of the formation of NASA not the NASA Astrophysics Data System. Halgin (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It would still have more points than Dickinson, though, just because it is an FA over two years old. But you're right, there's only one nom per person. Wrad (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a very worthy article when it hits the page. But yes, it is only a two pointer. Too bad the editors on the NASA article couldn't have upgraded theirs in time for the 50th. Kinda close to Sirius, though . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

More relevant than Sirius in my book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I guess maybe we can withdraw my nomination (again!) and replace it with the NASA one. Wrad (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I just left another note for Cas :-) LOL, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck, been ultra-busy today...thx for sticking Sirius there, siriusly. :) A 50th anniversary doesn't come around too often and I can understand if Sirius gets bumped..We can leave it up to Raul..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

I stuck a place holder there for NASA, but someone should fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is good, but I think it should be only a two pointer, not a six. After all, it isn't the NASA article, but an article on a NASA database.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet, we allowed date relevancy points on the Tank because it was used in the Spanish Civil War? (By the way, I reviewed WP:FA and all of our other NASA-related articles have already run on the main page, and I discovered one bot mainpage bolding error that was missed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Francis Shea is a FA about a NASA manager that has not been on the main page. (Halgin (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Darn, I thought I checked them all; missed that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Still catching up here: it looks like I added the Astrophysics article.[6] I don't care if it's replaced with Shea, if someone wants to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do either get the four points?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Open to debate: I argue, yes. It's NASA's 50th and that's not a date we should miss, so I'd give it to NASA VIP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OOPSIE, can everyone read Shea and see if they think it's a tribute to NASA? There are some issues there. My vote goes with whatever y'all decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

August 16

Someone put on the template, for August 16, "Any Premier League Team FA starting day". A quick investigation reveals to me that only Everton F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. both are articles on Premiership teams and have not yet been TFA. I hope this simplifies things for the requester. (Aston Villa might be the better candidate on the ground that it will be a one year FA on July 24, although on the other hand, Everton is actually starting its season that day because Villa is in the Intertoto Cup). I'll ask the requester, if he puts a request on the request page, to pick one or the other. Not both, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On the points, did you check the new criterion we'll be adding (about the nominator); that would affect one point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the person who added it is Bole2, and he has edited each article, but only a small number of edits (19 on one, 2 on the other). I don't think he would qualify, if he is the one who adds it to the page. Besides, if he requests this, he can't request Yellowstone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What I want to know is...

What happens to articles with TONS of support that get kicked off, but have no conflict with any other date? This is the number one reason I don't like the 5 article rule. I think if the community agrees to an article for TFA, it should be TFA. Is Raul going to put it up, or is it going to be forgotten? If it is going to be put up, then why can't he go ahead and schedule articles with that kind of support ahead of time? Even if he isn't around, can't we set it aside as a "locked in" article until Raul comes along to schedule it? And I'm not just speaking for Dickinson here, I'm speaking for all articles that come through here and get tons of support, but are ultimately replaced. I want to feel as though the droves of support articles like this get are being listened to. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are about 950 articles that haven't been on the mainpage; they all have support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I get your WP:POINT, but could you please talk to me straight here? I feel like the above comment just brushes away my question instead of seriously considering it. What is our plan for articles that get a lot of support on this page for TFA but get replaced? Are we going to at the very least let Raul know that it had all that support? Doesn't that sound reasonable? None of those other 900 articles has been proposed for August 1st by its editors and supported by several other specific editors in an open forum. Doesn't it make sense to have a plan for cases like this, or am I just crazy? Wrad (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One potential option is reserve 1 slot for an article with no date relevance. If an article got a lot of support for that no date relevance spot, then it would remain in the slot until Raul either scheduled it or otherwise removed it from the slot. Other articles without date relevance could be proposed in the remaining slots but would be subject to being bumped if a higher-point article came along. Second option: raise the point level for core/vital/notable topics so that those would be less likely to be bumped. (I personally think it unfair to give a potential 6 points for a date link and only 1 point for a topic everyone ought to know about). As to the specific Dickinson example, does it get more points now that the new rules have taken effect, or is that only for articles nominated today or later? Karanacs (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas (we decided the changes were retroactive, since they were announced well in advance). I haven't kept track of whether it gets more points per any category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think changing points is the answer, because no matter what we do, at least a few articles with a lot of support are going to be cut. I just think letting Raul know that such and such an article had a lot of support would be a good idea. Wrad (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But 950 articles have a lot of support; that's what we're dealing with and trying to avoid. That is what it's about, whether it's 5 or 365, it's the same problem. Karanacs has some great ideas. Allocate one of the five slots to no date connection (but please keep 6 points for 100-yr anniversaries, because we must put those on their day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd hold off on changing the system like that until we see how this works in practice. As every one of the articles in the template has some sort of date connection, it seems to be what people want. Why put aside a slot that won't be in huge demand (or will be used to slip through low point articles)? My guess is that many of the articles Raul will put in that were not requested on the project page will have no date connection anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can prove that all of those articles would get support. How many articles have been kicked out just in the past couple of weeks by overwhelming disapproval, Sandy? My proposal is pretty innocent and easy to implement. I don't understand why we can't just agree to it and move on. By the way, Dickinson may have a case for 2 more points under the new system, if people thought no other poets as TFA in six months was grounds for the points. Wrad (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Put up the two points and see what happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC) By the way, if the two points stick, then my oppose goes, because it was only for the case of a tie-breaker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we settled that To Kill a Mockingbird doesn't cost her anything. I don't see anything close to Dickinson in terms of topic in the past six months. Hardly any literature at all, let alone poetry or poets.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll change it once the new points are put into the instructions. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Sandy already do that?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Missed that one! Wrad (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(unind) I may be in favor of increasing notability points, but I'd have to wait a little bit and see. Wrad (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Which one get deleted?

If there are two or more article with the same lowest point-value which one get deleted? I asked this on 8 April 2008, but no body replied. I proposed two options then. One option is the one with the least supports. Another is the one the later date. (Halgin (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)).

Higher percentage of opposes. It's all on the project page--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think both of them will end up on the main page anyway, so don't be shy about replacing one. Wrad (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure an article with 12 Supports and 1 Oppose with should be removed before an article with 4 or 5 Supports and no Oppose. Also I don't think people should be opposing an article to keep another article on a different date from being removed. Sooner or later this will have to be answered if the point system is going to work. (Halgin (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)).

I kind of think that, in the end, it doesn't really matter, but I would discourage such votes, although people can vote however they like. Wrad (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, a lot of edit conflicts. Anyway, the percentage is fairer because Dickinson has been up longer than Yao. And there will be system gaming, though I hope not much.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dickinson has been up longer, so has more votes. Confused about Halgin's response, since supporting or opposing so we can allocate the five slots is the purpose of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I only oppose if I don't think it belongs on that day. I try not to let the five-article mess get in the way. Wrad (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But people have to oppose or we don't have a system; it's just like any other process at Wiki (FAC, FAR, AFD, RFA ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

People do oppose, though. They oppose articles that they don't think belong on the date proposed. Wrad (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With the new rules on articles similar to recent TFAs getting negative points, a lot of the reasons for possible oppose votes have gone. The only reasons I can think of to oppose a TFA now are if it's in conflict with another article for the same date, would give negative points to a similar article in the future, or is overtly political or advertisement when associated with a given date. For most nominations, none of these will be the case, so tiebreakers on the grounds of oppose votes are dubious imo. Adacore (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be. Let us run it in practice and see how it goes. I would suggest waiting until the end of the month, give it a fair chance, before seeking further changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably need to go through at least several cycles or Raul's mainpage scheduling to see how it all shakes out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports

If Yao Ming ends up being run during the Olympics, and considering Donald Bradman is an important (100-yr) anniversary on the 27th, I would oppose a football club on the 16th. That would be three sports articles in a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the case of multiple articles on similar topics, are the negative points cumulative? For example, if you had Yao Ming on the 8th August and a football club on the 16th, would a Donald Bradman nomination on the 27th be given -3 or -5 points? I assume, based on consistency with the other rules, they're not cumulative, so it would be -3 (or, perhaps, if you don't consider a football club similar enough to a cricketer to merit deductions, -2). Adacore (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It would not be cumulative. I could live with three sports articles in the month simply because this will be Olympics month. Ordinarily, I'd agree, three would be too many. But if one has to go, I'd say kick the football. There are just so many times during the year you can run a football article that the opening day of the Premiership season (Go Baggies!) seems not so urgent. Certainly not compared with the Olympics, and with the centennial of one of the greatest cricketers ever.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As a separate, but connected issue, I think that the connection between articles about any English professional football clubs and the Olympics is beyond tenuous. Yes, there's a football competition at the Olympics, but that's rather a disconnect to bridge to clubs that can't and don't compete in that tournament. If we're going to mark the Olympics, let it be with an article that has a strong connection to China or, better, the Olympic Games/Olympians. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say there was. The reason there is talk of having a football article on Aug 16 is because that is opening day of the Premiership, arguably the most popular football league on the planet. It just happens to fall during the Olympics this year. It isn't to mark the Olympics in any way. And certainly the Bradman article isn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. The list is misleading. I read it as listing two groups of football articles, one against the 8th and one against the 16th, both of which were connected to the Olympics. I now see that it's one date only and "opening day" means "...of the Premiership". That's a little too brief for clarity. Why not just nominate one article and then there'll be room for explanation? Also, I don't understand your last sentence; could you clarify please? The Bradman article isn't what? --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't nominated anything. This started out, on the template, as "any Premier League featured article" (I'm paraphrasing). I thought that was a bit vague, so I found two Premiership articles that were Featured articles. It actually seems that I missed a few, so someone added those. If someone wants to request a football article for August 16 for the main page, those are the possibilities (I favor the Stoke article, if we're having one, since the team was just promoted, so it is their first Premiership match ever (of course they were in the old First Division for many years).) And as for Bradman, I'm saying it is not Olympic-related. The Bradman article is very likely to be used, since it is the centennial of his birth, and centennials don't come along every day.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the Template shouldn't be used this way; the nominator needs to pick one, preferably the one with the highest point value. Dweller was confused because of the way the template displays, and it's not intended to be used to list a gazillion different choices for one slot. I suggest Buc should pick one football article to put forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if the nominator isn't willing to take the time to pick a specific article that would fit the slot, then I'm less willing to take the time consider the nomination. It just makes things harder. Wrad (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I played around with the template wording to eliminate future problems, and got rid of all but one of the football articles. If someone who cares about Aug 16 more than me wants to change it to another football article, he/she should feel free. I'm not planning on requesting it for TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the wording; trying to keep the template brief, and from wrappping into the TOC (am I the only one who has this browser issue?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed August 16 to Everton F.C., since it would get one more point than History of Stoke City F.C. becuase it was promoted to Featured Article on August 29, 2006. If all else is equal then use the one promoted first to FA. I'm not planning on requesting it for TFA, so feel to change it. However, try to keep the point for age. (Halgin (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

(unind) I'm not having it (Firefox) Wrad (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Firefox. Why don't we change the wording in the template to "the next sixty days". At most, the difference will be only a week, and it lets us get rid of that confusing language that forces the reader to look up the period.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or next 60 unscheduled days? Anyway, sounds good to me either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple, Sandy. :). Just say the next sixty days. People don't seem to be gunning for the fringes of the period, anyway, and it will simplify things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Boot the football team. Football season comes every year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddball dates

How many points should we give articles that are reaching their nth anniversary, where n is not a multiple of 10 but is particularly significant to the topic? For example, March 8, 2020, would be the 42nd anniversary of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's not divisible by 10 (or 50, or 100), I think it just gets the single point. Adacore (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It would only get the point. Obviously the requestor could make the point in making the request as to why the request is so relevant for that date, and possibly pick up additional support votes that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I can see a lot of pile-on support for something like the 42nd anniversary of Hitchhiker's. I'd hope that would then be respected and the article not removed due to low points. It seems to be holding (for now, at least) for the Dickenson article. Adacore (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is holding, and I think it is for two reasons. First, no one wants to be the one to replace it, for fear there will be opposes out of ire. Second, Raul is going to have to do some scheduling within the next couple of days, and that will open up at least one slot, more likely two, on the requests page without the need for replacements.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the human element; as Sandy says, "If you make it all by rules, it can be done by a bot". I am glad to see that the system is working along the lines of common sense. Waltham, The Duke of 15:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is because it is Dickinson, and because she has 13 supports. If it were an article on the gastrointestinal system of hymenopterae, it would have been gone already.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is a pity; I feel that not nearly enough people appreciate the beauty of insect anatomy these days. I curse modern values. Waltham, The Duke of 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(unind) I would support a good science article! I was under the impression that there were a lot of science folks on the wiki. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas is a science article and it's coming up soon :) Gary King (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was excited to see that one. Isn't it about to be a featured topic? Wrad (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's currently a nomination. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2005. You can't repeat articles. Halgin (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that was an example... Some people doubt Wikipedia will even exist in 2020, and although I do not necessarily agree with them, I cannot be any more certain about the future of this page. Waltham, The Duke of 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

List of unfeatured articles

~~Is there a list of featured articles that haven't shown up on the Main Page yet? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)~~

Never mind. I found it: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a useful page. Maybe it should be linked to from somewhere fairly prominent? I don't think it's easy to find right now. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we require at least one free image of nominee articles?

Due to the slap-dash fix we had to perform on Palpatine this evening and To Kill a Mocking bird yesterday, I think we need to add a criteria for potential TFA candidates. Since it was pointed out images are nice to have in MainSpace, and also considering that exceptions to WP:NFC#9 are meant to be used sparingly, we should probably require TFA candidates to have at least one free image to be considered. As the goal is a free image encyclopedia, this will spur effort to find free images for the FA's that predate the rather spartan new interpretations of our image policy running through the wiki like a bad case of the Clap.
Of course, that might seem like too much work, so the alternative is that articles without free images run without any MainSpace image at all. Thoughts? -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Too restrictive. It is not true every article needs an image, but we prefer that if there is a free one it should be included. However, to say that an article that only has non-free images must have at least one or otherwise the non-free is gone is too harsh particularly towards contemporary works. This is not to say that free images among non-free images is not bad and encouraged when possible, but it's one thing to include, say, a free BPL-friendly picture of an author for the singular work they are most notable for, and the same type of picture on each article of an author with multitudes of works. The other side is that if an article is only non-free images, every use needs to be put through the wringer to make sure its necessary. --MASEM 06:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And now that I realize this is the TFA not FAC (late for me), the arguments still apply; certain classes of articles rely on material that is primarily non-free images with no relevant free images to use (in light of being a TFA), but we should not bar such articles from TFA. --MASEM 06:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to ask a fairly stupid question: How many image-free FA and TFA are there? I am not speaking of non-free images, but rather articles with no images in them whatsoever. I looked, but I didn't find any in media at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't care for a hard and fast rule. Obviously, editors can use that as a factor in deciding to support or oppose a request, and Raul can use it as a factor in deciding what to put on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you do understand that the phrase Mainspace refers to articles and is not another word for the Main Page, right? Reading through your comments above and those in the AN post, it would appear you are confusing this point. --XRK ^t/_c 18:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely was making the mistake. Thanks very much for pointing it out. I imagine I came across like a buffoon for mixing them up. :( - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(Response to section-starting post:) No, articles should be allowed to run without an image. While I support images with weak connections for decorative purposes, if editors go to the trouble of writing a featured article, they should not be penalized because they do not have a free image. Will the requirement "spur effort to find free images"? Yes, but that might be all it does, i.e. it will not necessarily produce free images. If by "TFA candidates" you mean TFA requests, you should know (if you do not already) that most TFAs are scheduled by Raul654 without community input. You say that Wikipedia is a "free image encyclopedia", which it strives to be, but more importantly, Wikipedia is just a free encyclopedia. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe articles have run on the main page before without a corresponding mainpage image. I've personally written FA's that had free images, but none that would be appropriate to run as the image on the mainpage. (For example, see Georgette Heyer). Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is not a requirement to be a FA then it should not be a rule to be on the main page. I believe every FA should be able to be on the main page. Also, images for the main page have to be resized to 100 pixels wide. Some images are useless at that size. To Kill a Mockingbird” had a public image with the author, but it had several other people in it. Palpatine was not even on the request page. Halgin (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Honestly, i don't think we truly need such a criteria, even though it would help to motivate the seeking out of free imagery.. To the contrary, we need to be completely at ease with allowing Featured articles to be used on the Main page without imagery. If anything, we should stipulate that the only images that can be used in TFA should come only from the parent article only. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to use an image not present in the article. Fancy footwork aside, its a basic bait and switch. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Aug 8th on pending template

I propose that the Tibet option is removed. The basketball player already has substantial support and I believe that the inherent political pointscoring of using a Tibet-related article would attract a substantial number of opposes, as well as causing unnecessary drama. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Tibet could potentially take any date during the Olympics and shouldn't cause any serious date conflicts. Wrad (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It could. But I'd argue strongly that it shouldn't. Fine, let's debate that separately, below. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be removing any articles from the template which meet the requirements, that is, a date within the next sixty days which Raul has not yet assigned TFA, and a FA which has not yet been TFA. The template has no official status, it is optional notice of intent to make a request and/or sending up a trial balloon. Nothing becomes "official" until an actual request is made.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

^ For example Earth on Earth Day.
^ A "notable topic" is considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year old using Wikipedia for a school project.
^ Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FA; for example, two film articles.
^ Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FA; for example, two film articles.

[1] For example Earth on Earth Day.

[2] A "notable topic" is considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year old using Wikipedia for a school project.

[3] Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FA; for example, two film articles.

[4] Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FA; for example, two film articles.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Discussion on the TFA template's talk page

I lost track

Question

Numbering in instructions

Starting over

Points issues

Community removal of requests

Opportunities

More questions

Examples

Suggestion

Subtracting points for well-covered areas

How about a page just for proposals

Proposals for closeness of noms in the same category

Working sample

Idea to make it even more simple

NEW PAGE proposal

Earliest date choice for articles without date connection

Adjustment to address urgent requests

Speedy Deletions

30 days suggestion

Mainpage "starvation"

Archive?

Ideas page

Trial run

Consensus before change

The Simpsons Movie and the 80% threshold

Proposed changes

Discussion

Proposal on significant contributors

Article without a specific date?

Suggest changing the instructions

TFA/Requests/Pending template

Next step

Diversity questions

Date relevancy: strong vs. weak

Proposed changes - Main page representation

Wikipedia:TFA/Requests/Pending

August 8, for discussion

List of FAs that not been TFAs

November 14

July 29

August 16

What I want to know is...

Which one get deleted?

Sports

Oddball dates

List of unfeatured articles

Should we require at least one free image of nominee articles?

Aug 8th on pending template