Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Articles on Tibet during the Olympics on Main Page

I will strongly argue against any article being featured on Main Page during the Olympics that would be perceived as an apparent criticism by Wikipedia of China. Wikipedia is neutral and we do not encourage drama.

I would similarly argue against deliberately featuring: an article on Guantanamo Bay detention camp on American Independence Day, The Holocaust on the day of the German elections or, for that matter, September 11, 2001 attacks on Eid, or St. Bartholomew's Day massacre on the day a Pope is elected.

Much as I despise the Chinese government's attitude to human rights, we're an encyclopedia, not a political protest movement. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I plan to oppose if it finds a slot among the five; I don't believe we use the mainpage to make political statements. It would be a shame for it to take one of the five slots from another article. Its addition to the five will test this system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it as a political statement at all. It has passed FA and should therefore be neutral. I think it is just as much a political statement to oppose it as to support it, if you believe it's political at all. Wrad (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's a political statement. Yes, the article may be neutral, but the decision to place it on the main page is one we can control. Gary King (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well I think it would be great for society in general, amidst all of the confusion about the issue, to be introduced to such a wonderful, neutral article by wikipedia. I've read over it and it is excellent. It portrays both sides extremely well. I don't see how it could be construed to be politically biased in any way. I also don't think there could possibly be a better time to show people what wikipedia can do on the subject. Wrad (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There are 364 other days in the year. The Tibet article can go on the main page on one of those days. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
None of those days has the relevance of an Olympics in China and a time when people are debating this history around the world. That only happens once in a thousand lifetimes. We have an awesome, neutral article and we should show it off instead of hiding it. Wrad (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this. If this article is a political statement, what exactly is it saying? Wrad (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a political statement. The use of the article during the Olympics, when Tibet activists, had been making such a fuss, could be taken as an expression of sympathy or support for them. Best to be avoided. The Tibet article is fine, any other time!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the article? It most certainly does not sympathize with Tibet activists. It covers the PRC side just as well as the other side. It sympathizes with no one at all. Wrad (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
See previous comment. I said "the use of the article", not the article itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How does using a neutral article sympathize with any side? I'm really baffled. I believe that people are projecting their own political views onto this article rather than actually reading it. Judge it for what it is! Wrad (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt; again, I myself have said that the conscious decision to choose Tibet as the main page article is the statement, not the article itself. Also, none of us have the intention of making a political statement. However, it can be easily misconstrued that way. Easily. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a neutral article. If it is a FA then it should be able to go on the main page. However, It only gets one point for the date. What other points does it get? I don’t think it can replace any thing on the current page. Also there seems like a number of higher point articles on the TFA requests pending table coming up soon. Halgin (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How does it even get one point?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(unind) I don't see that it does, really. A date link to the olympics due to protests about tibet would definitely be a political point. I suppose if a new nominator put it up then it'd get a point. As Gary said, it's not the content of the article that's going to be seen as political. People are going to see an article with the word "Tibet" on the main page of wikipedia during the olympics and say that this indicates political support by wikipedia of those who are trying to promote issues related to Tibet. If it were just randomly selected, this could be refuted, but if it's purposefuly chosen by this process, it's an argument I agree with. Plus, as I noted above, the Chinese government certainly considers the article political, as it's blocked in China. Adacore (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any Tibet protests going on now? I haven't heard of any for months. I argue that if you're going to say it's political at all, it is just as political to oppose it as to support it. And if people are going to see the word "Tibet" on the main page and think all that, then congratulations, they're idiots. Why should we be idiots too? Wrad (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No idea if they are. Well, what is the rationale for having that article in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been Tibetan-related protests or people preparing for protests at the Olympics in the past few weeks. Also, avoiding a political situation is not also making a political statement. Also, the argument that opposing it makes a political statement is also false. It requires no action on our part to not place it on the main page. If you did not do something, does that mean you disapprove of it?
Anyways, this is pretty pointless. We can all wait until if and when this hits the actual WP:TFAR for consensus time. Gary King (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I will never understand this profound fear of offending the Chinese Communists. Almost no other group or nation is given this much fearful chatter about not making a "political point". If it is topical, such as Tibetan protests of the 2008 olympics, it would be extremely appropriate as it would be a notable date and topic. If we don't want it on that specific day because there is a better article/anniversary to acknowledge, fine, but if this is motivated by some morbid fear of offending the murderous regime that sits (for now) in Beijing, that is really unbecoming of wikipedians and wikipedia, which is all about the free dissemination of information without regard to who dislikes that information or wants to supress it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this is just a "fear of offending the Chinese Communists", it's that WP should not be used by anyone to score political points for anyone. I agree than an article on Tibetan protests (or any protests) of the 2008 Olympics would have a very good case for being featured during the Olympics. However, to me it seems spiteful on WP's part to put controversial articles about subject X on the front page at a time when most of the world is celebrating subject X. I think Dweller's first post said it best. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I also have no problem irritating the Chinese government personally, but I don't think it should be Wikipedia's stance to do that. If anything, an article regarding Tibet and the Olympics should be featured, like 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay, which is relevant to both issues. Anyone care to get that through FAC in the next 2 weeks? --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Judgesurreal777's phrasing indicates that he has a strong political view on the subject, to which he's entitled, but perhaps it blinded him to the discussion where we said we didn't want to do this for any nation, that is, a Guantanamo article on July 4, St. Bartholomew's Massacre article on pope's election, etc. It is for all nations. We shouldn't be trying to play "gotcha"--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article won't do well on this page since it doesn't have many points. I do, however, think that characterizing this article as "controversial" is very unfair. It is one of the most impressively balanced articles I've ever seen! If anyone thinks the article itself is biased, I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and put it up for FAR and point out exactly where it is biased. I'm assuming, though, that most of us agree that it isn't biased.
As for the argument that "doing nothing" is not a political statement, that could not be more wrong. Once someone suggests it, we have a responsibility to respond yea or nay. If you believe that the yeas are political votes (which I don't) then you have to acknowledge that the nays are just as political.
I see this as an opportunity to present a neutral, unbiased article on a hot subject to the world. I think it should be featured prominently in all its balanced glory as an example of what wikipedia can do. Wrad (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it will be featured sooner or later; Wikipedia will not receive a tidal wave of visitors during the Olympics, will it? Unless, of course, we are referring to Wikipedia's block in China, which is quite likely to be reinstated after the Games. I believe that featuring the article during the Games but not on the day of the Opening Ceremony will ensure great visibility but still be a safe choice. After all, the featuring of the article in question is a political statement despite the article's excellent qualities, because, simply enough, many people will judge this action without reading the article. I know, they should know better, but our reputation will still suffer. Waltham, The Duke of 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As has been said multiple times, and to you specifically, the suitability of the article as a featured article is not the problem. It's that putting it on the Main Page on August 8, which just oh-so-coincidentally happens to be the date of the start of the Games in China, heavily suggests a political point. As a neutral encyclopedia, we should not do that. -- tariqabjotu 13:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You are a bunch of manipulating hypocrites because you are putting an article about misleading Anti-American BBC documentary about the war on terrorism (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2008) while an American presidential candidate visits Iraq, while refusing to even put a story about Tibet and China on the today's featured article requests page to talk about. You make a big deal about not offending the bloody Chinese Communist, then do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.44.165 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New diversity proposal

Consolidated below to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#New proposed changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We had this in an earlier proposed version, but it got deleted without a lot of discussion. Seeing now how a mainpage scheduling cycle works, I see Too Many Kings and Too Many Hurricanes too close to each other, considering how many articles still need and deserve a slot. I propose we add back, to be implemented July 25 with consensus:

  • A similar article recently featured on main page:
    • Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points
    • Within one month of requested date: –2 points
    • Within two months of requested date: –1 point
  • 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) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. I'll go with whatever consensus says. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sandy, you yourself stated "Probably need to go through at least several cycles or Raul's mainpage scheduling to see how it all shakes out." I oppose a change until we wait the time agreed, at least a month. You've made your opposition clear, that's fine, that's your right. But I don't think that this is an appropriate time for a change, and I don't think that this is the appropriate means of doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    We started the first proposal beginning of July, implementing another change towards the end of July, having now observed a cycle, is not too soon. Whether we wait or not, we can now see this point system allows in Too Many Kings and Too Many Hurricanes (and there are probably others that haven't shown up yet). Mainpage diversity is a goal we need to aim for, and perpetually starving out other editors will lead to a resentlful backlash about this page again; the page needs to serve the community. Emsworth doesn't need more TFAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    And if you pass it, William IV will still have three points, what then? Three points should still keep it on the page. I just don't like the way this is being gone about (several cycles down to one cycle, now). If we considered te one point deduction, and did not adopt it, well, it did not achieve consensus, and should not so quickly and abruptly be resurrected in this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, the King wouldn't change so no need to worry; that's why I propose implementation after a time delay (don't change the rules mid-game). The problem is already evident; why should we wait longer to fix it? We have the same problem we've always had on this page; whoever got here first, even though many similar articles have already run on the mainpage, are able to lock out other worthy articles, even adding on points that stretch the definition of a 12-yo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    Don't agree there's a problem. Editors can use their privilege to oppose, as you did yourself. And of course, it is all up to Raul.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    I do not oppose to the proposal, but I do mind its timing. I suggest that we should give more time to the current system and judge based on many different cases. I believe it would be best to put this on hold for two weeks and start discussions in August. Waltham, The Duke of 14:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo replacement

Turning hastily to another topic, I think the replacement of the Hurricane Season article by Peterloo was improper. The Hurricane Season article had two points. As far as I can see, if done on Aug 18, Peterloo has only one (new author), as the Peterloo Massacre took place on the 16th. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I see now the date has been changed to the 16th. I think we need to hear the rationale for the Peterloo requester replacing a two point article with a two point article for another date.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's three, based on your British 12-yo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • This is true. Wrad (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • So's the hurricane, if Yao Ming also qualifies. And wouldn't Dickinson be the next to go?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I contest this application of the 12-yo points; I suggest we're back to not staying within the guidelines, which has been the historical precedent and the problem on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I replaced it because there were no points claimed for the hurricane article as can (sorry could) be seen from the table. If that was wrong I apologise but I'm just trying to follow the rules as I see them. I can change it for the Emily Dickinson one if you like but I have to say the rules for nominations are somewhat confusing.Richerman (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
              • This is why I suggest adding points to the pending template, so we don't have a mad rush to figure out points every time Raul schedules. There is no reason these discussions couldn't have been held earlier, to avoid last-minute agida. I added them earlier and someone deleted them. Points can be sorted in advance to avoid the dog-eat-dog feel that is generated by everyone trying to get a slot when Raul schedules. We can do this more calmly and rationally by figuring up points and discussing articles sooner; let's add points to the pending template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We will never have an exact count, because we don't know who is doing the nominating. We could call it "estimated points"--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But if we put it in place, when nominators add to the template, they will know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic, it looks like the Peterloo requester relied on this [1], which perhaps wasn't the best advice, given that it is not the requester's job at present, to update the summary box, it is to be done by "editors who follow the page". Why do we bother to put rules and procedures on the page, if we disregard them when convenient?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You lost me; anyone can update the chart (isn't entirely relevant here). Any editor follows the page; the intent is that if someone neglects to update the chart, someone else (who regularly follows the page) will do it. Who is disregarding what "rule"? At the time I responded to that post, the hurricane had one point; it was next to go. And, it would have gone anyway. And, this problem can be avoided in the future by encouraging advance calculation of the points via the template. Where's the problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hurricane had two points. But the only point discussed was that there were no points listed in the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Diversity points

See also: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests § New proposed changes
.
  • Notable topic: 1 point
  • A "notable topic" is considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year old using Wikipedia for a school project.

As I understood the history of this page, this point was intended for basic subject matter for school children. An important test and historical discussion about the five-article limit on this page is whether the community can stay within the guidelines, or whether anything put in place will be gamed. If the King gets a point (although children in most countries don't study every British King), where do we draw the line? Children also study hurricanes, and British children also study the Peterloo Massacre. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, let's face it, it is badly phrased. You have vastly more experience on this page than I do, and you know what was intended. Problem is, it is phrased very broadly. Can you come up with language which implements what was meant? Because right now, I'm just trying to act on what I'm reading, and it is imprecise.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't actually have much experience with this page at all; I've decided to see a few cycles through to try to understand past complaints, and this is the first cycle I've seen through. And it's already become clear that whatever we put in place, it's stretched to the limit. School children throughout most of the world do not study about Yao Ming or the King or the Peterloo Massacre. I don't know if we need to fix the wording (we can try, but it's clear to me that this is a stretch), or simply better enforce the intent. None of them deserve the 12-yo point; if they do, then almost everything does. If the community wants input about the mainpage, it needs to handle it responsibly. It shouldn't be a mad dash to get in first and put up the most points one can, when there are many worthy articles waiting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. Either almost every article should be able to claim that point, or almost none of them would. I suggest we not use that point and have a proposal to eliminate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we just need to let consensus decide. Not every article is getting this point, so limits are being enforced. I for one don't care if they aren't completely clear and written out. I don't think it's possible to make it "completely" clear. Wrad (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I find the wording clear enough now: basic subject matter. I think the current 12-yo points are stretching the system. I disagree with eliminating the point: it is valid in many cases. It's not valid in these cases. Do y'all have twelve-year-old kids? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's survey 100 12 year old kids, and see if they know about William IV or Peterloo or whatever! But I think the editor who nominated Peterloo (I'm too tired to look up his name) has a point, the instructions are confusing, this is a symptom of it, and it is a significant barrier to entry for those wanting their work on the front page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a 11-yr-old brother and a 14 year old sister. Wrad (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not about whether they know it; it's whether it's basic subject matter. I worked with Malleus a bit yesterday about the confusion in the system, and honestly, the confusion he had could have been solved yesterday by adding points to the template in advance. Far less agida to not be vying for a slot while points are in discussion. Very unpleasant and off-putting experience; we can make it better by encouraging point tallies in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(unind) This is a new challenge for us. Usually slots do not fill in this fast! I think it shows that people have more faith in the system. Wrad (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm wondering if the proposer of the hurricane article is feeling that way, when his article was replaced by another article of at best equal points! I wish I better understood what the rule meant by "basic subject matter". What I am afraid of is that it is not only difficult to understand, but it is what we used to call back in my College Bowl days, a protest maker (that is, a question so poorly written that it almost inevitably will provoke a protest by one or the other team.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we have to keep up with our own growth to keep this hope up. I was just pointing out that this was a relatively rare problem before because there was never any rush to nominate like this. Wrad (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we'll get closer to solving what happened this time by encouraging a system that tallies the points in advance, to the extent possible. This problem would have come up sooner and we could have sorted it without bad feelings. And, it will help encourage discussion here (instead of the requests for help I'm getting on my talk page :-) Wrad, can you tally the points in the pending template? I'm not that good at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've got to nail down basic subject matter. To me it's something that all fifth graders clearly study, almost universally, as part of a standard curriculum in any public or routine school system. Not specific to a given country or curriculum (like Latin in private schools starting in 4th grade). They study weather; they don't study a given hurricane. They study biology; they don't study a specific bird just because it may show up on some online quiz. They study the History of California; they don't study a particular Californian politician. And so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so I understand. History of California would qualify?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That was a random example for the concept that fifth graders study U.S. History or whatever state or country they live in, etc.

Thanks for doing the points, Wrad; I can see that it will help. The owners of the 0 to 1 pointers should know where they stand now. And, if you calculated the estimate wrong, they'll bring it up here on talk, hopefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is something that has to be studied, basically worldwide?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI age 12 is grade 7 not grade 5, per Education in the United States and from my own experience :) Gary King (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
oopsie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see language that an editor, thinking about nominating his pride and joy for TFA, would understand. As it stands, Sandy is talking about the curriculum. But the rule talks about a school project, which is the application of the curriculum to a subject with relevance to the curriculum. So yes, as it stands, a student studying the history of California, might choose to study (not an FA) Henry Meiggs, and use the article we have. By the letter of the rule, that would qualify as a notable topic (again, it isn't a FA).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can get more clarity by looking instead at what sort of article would not be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you can work backwards from the result you want, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Either I'm misreading/misunderstanding, or that's not a very helpful comment. Browsing the core and vital topics, a lot of what I thought might be included in a school project is already in one of those groups. What is the result I want? Any kid can do a school project on just about any topic, so I don't know where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the result I want is language that means something, so that an editor can understand it, apply it, and claim the point with confidence.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another issue: when we straighten out the 12-yo points, I think Yao Ming is now the Next Voted Off. Highly important event, only every four years, and he's the first to go? That's goofed up; how can we account for that (in the future)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Write more Olympic FA's?  :) --Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, though, it is unclear. Peterloo has two points (really) and a oppose ratio of undefined. Yao Ming has two points (really) and an oppose ratio of zero. I'm not sure how you compare undefined (zero divided by zero) and zero.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This is now entering the "how important is the date connection" territory. Gary King (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be more than saying the article should get one for being a notable topic or this article should get it because another unrelated article claims it. Earlier some article supported the claim by showing higher hits during school days. It was added before the points for core topic and vital article were added. (Halgin (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
There's a problem in our date relevance. Or, we could view it another way. There's a problem in our timing. Neither Noble Gas nor the King need to be here, because they'll get in on the next round. They're both occupying slots unnecessarily, because Raul doesn't schedule that far out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right, of course. But there is still a reluctance to replace articles (though after what I have seen tonight, I may be old fashioned on that score). So when you see an open slot . . . I could be on the road or unavailable next time Raul schedules. Anyway, what do you propose to address it? Do you want me to give up that slot? (actually, ask a stupid question) . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No magical answers here, but this is the first time I've observed a full round, and I see the weak points. Maybe Karanacs will come along tomorrow with a fresh brain and a magic wand. I'm allergic to the main page <grin> ... it's hard for me to understand why people want to go through that, so I'm probably atypical, but I'd risk taking the King down and put Dickinson back up, aiming to get the King in next time. True, the gamble could backfire, but it's more than a month away, and Dickinson was almost there, and Yao might get voted off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, I just thought about what I just said (nice of me to think after the fact, no?) If the request period was 30 days from the last date Raul scheduled instead of 30 days from the last scheduled article, wouldn't that better reflect reality? If the cutoff right now were August 16 (30 days from today, when Raul last scheduled), Noble Gas and the King wouldn't need to be up yet, they'd get in next time, Dickinson and (I forget?) would still be on the page, and it would be more in line with the timing of Raul's scheduling. He's not going to schedule until August 21 next time he schedules; we're too far out. Can't we fix that by redefining when our 30-day period starts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm gone in late July/early August. If some of them have a strong date connection, then hopefully people will support it sooner, and if that happens, then Raul can remove it from the page sooner? Gary King (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What incentive do people have to sit back and wait? There is no upside I can see, the downside is that they might be locked out.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(unind) I think we need to put considerably more weight on the importance of support votes. If an article has a significant number of genuine support votes, that is surely more valuable than a the single oppose that is generally all that's required to tip the ratio, and probably more valuable than another article with a higher score in the points system without such support. Adacore (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Adacore. I see in our future numerous "Oppose neener neener!" !votes from users wishing only to demote the approval percentage rate of certain articles in order to make another article request appear in a better light. This opens us up to all sorts of problems. Under current guidelines, an article with only two support !votes but no opposes is higher on the totem pole than an article with fifteen support !votes and one oppose. Bzuh? This whole ratio thing needs to be rethought. María (habla conmigo) 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are several problems here. I'm going to try to consolidate all the new proposals tonight. We have time to work this out because we're quite a ways from Raul's next scheduling, but this needs to make sense; Dickinson should be on the page now, and the King should not. It's too far out on the timeline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I don't think we should be making rule changes to benefit one article or hamper another. We should be making rules with general applicability. If you make rules to tinker with the system, then we'll find ourselves doing it again and again until no one has confidence in the system because the rules are being gamed by the rulemakers. It is a bad idea, and we should not do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt, it reads to me like I have no pony in this race (I opposed Dickinson, and have NO FA that I want on the main page), while you have a vested interest in keeping the King among the five requests, although the King is five weeks away and will have enough points to make it on another round, and even though that prevents other articles from getting a slot. Let's be fair to everyone OK? NONE of my proposals would take effect immediately, so I'm not suggesting we jig the system to the advantage of any given article, nor do I have an interest in any given article, but we've seen problems that need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

← We used to have no exit strategy for bad nominations. We have solved that problem, and the page flows better as a result. What about good nominations, though? Let us assume, to give you an extreme example, that a nomination has five undisputed points, in one week has gathered twenty supports and no opposes, and no reason has been given why this article should not be featured on the requested date. Why, I ask, should the slot be taken up by a definite keeper (to the extent that the community can define this) just because Raul's next scheduling is several days ahead? It is a waste of space.

Now, I don't say that we should replace the Director and schedule articles ourselves (I shouldn't dream of it). We could, however, set aside some space for articles which we have decided beyond doubt that should be featured on the Main Page on a specific day. A "locked nomination", if you will. Raul will evaluate these as every other when the time comes, but the request slot will be free; if he has a reason not to feature one, that will be a decision the community will have no influence over as it doesn't have now, so there is no change there.

The only potential problems I can see are two: growing complexity on the page, and how we choose which articles to set aside. I am sure a way to solve them can be found, however. I suggest high criteria which will make such articles rare (after all, they should be pretty much undisputed). This way there will be no real circumventing of the five-nominations limit and we can finally have a sense of stability where needed without precious slots taken up.

Question: Should I move this into a new section? I don't see it going far, anyway, but for the sake of page organisation... Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, completely disagree, brings us back full circle to the old arguments, won't work for all the reasons amply covered then. There are other factors, Raul has given this page five slots. Your proposal potentially increases that to *all* slots, when we haven't yet even figured out how to optimally manage the five slots (evidence the issues we're currently having). Please. Let's make this work before attempting to expand it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note: I am not making a specific proposal, subject to immediate approval or disapproval and, in the former case, application. All I want is to test the waters; in the event that reaction is positive, I'll bring this up again in August. I continue to believe that no good evaluation of the new system can be made until then. Waltham, The Duke of 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Addition: I was suggesting this for very few articles, Sandy... Only the ones with the clearest support: the ones we could no longer do anything with but sit and stare them. After all, if there is a doubtful nomination on the page then that makes for four articles to be scheduled, not five. I suppose the locked ones would take precedence if Raul were to take only five into consideration. Waltham, The Duke of 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal, taken to its logical conclusion, means that as soon as *we* agree that a request is locked in, we set it aside and consider others, meaning we eventually schedule all slots. Raul has requested that we provide requests for five slots. Until that is working smoothly, asking for more than five slots is a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Analyzing your proposal logically, Sandy, we should consider dropping the time period from thirty to, let's say fifteen days. That way, all requests would be fresh, there would be a quick turnover, and Raul is likely to schedule three or four times in that time. I'm not saying I'd support such a proposal, I guess I am wondering if anyone sees a downside to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It would also make the system slightly more intuitive: people would know that there would be free slots for up to one month ahead, and not some date they'd have to check. As far as drawbacks are concerned... Well, Raul could complain for the increased rate of nominations. :-) Honestly, I'd have no scruples abandoning my proposal above (I think a lot, so it's not a real loss) if I were reassured that Raul would schedule often enough. Right now, I have no idea how often he does that. I am almost ready to complain about the secrecy surrounding his methods again. Waltham, The Duke of 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, what I was thinking is that while it might make it slightly more likely an article would be "locked out" by higher point ones thorughout the period of eligibility, it would result in a much higher number of "winners", that is, articles that were still there when Raul schedules their dates. My guess would be a 50 percent increase in winners. As for Raul, perhaps he will be annoyed, perhaps not, but how can he complain if we make the most efficient use of the very limited resources he allows us? I'm not saying that 15 days is the optimal number, but considering human factors like our inability to be sure when Raul will schedule and personal comfort levels, it might work. It addresses Sandy's concerns about high point articles sitting in a slot for a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to 30 days from today?

See also: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests § New proposed changes
.

Should we go back to back to 30 days from today? The articles would be added to the page slower thus giving more time to talk about them before another one can remove them. Halgin (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Wrad (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 30 days from today. The big jumps given by the current system mean you get sudden huge changes (as seen today) to the list, which is not conducive to useful discussion. Adacore (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. And that means you don't get multiple dates coming in. With the number of articles in the template, I think we'd see considerable gaming of the system.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about the requests page here, right? (There is also a template at the top...) (Stifles urge to say "I told you so") Waltham, The Duke of 16:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, we are talking about having the main TFA/R page be used for 30 days from the present date, while the pending (talk page) template is used for 60 days from the present date. I think (??? can someone check the history ???) we should consult whether this is in sync with the way Raul uses the page, since I suspect the 30 days was originally defined by him (unsure here though). This would take the King and Noble Gas off the page, as they are too far out and can get in later, which would allow Dickinson back on (so we need to discuss when that change would be effective). I will catch up later tonight and consolidate our proposals with consensus to one section, as we did last time. I'm also thinking we should ditch the line, "Within six months of requested date: 2 points", because I suspect it's taking up space in the instructions and is a point that will never be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the six-months points are indeed useless. I think they probably are. However, I still believe that it might be beneficial to defer all point-changing discussions to August. A month is a good enough time period for a decent evaluation of the situations which may arise. Two weeks, not so much. I am more receptive to a change in the nominations window (which was requested a long time ago, and which addresses completely different issues), but I shouldn't mind postponing that as well.
As far as the thirty-day window's establishment is concerned, this happened in an entirely different context. If you will have a look at my summary of the page's history here*, you'll see that the core of the current system (five nominations within the next thirty unscheduled days with significant date relevance and community support) was developed in a small separate section of the chaotic requests page, devoted to date requests. What happened next was simply that the rest was axed and the date requests stayed, with the same rules. The other rules were added with the advent of the point system in March, which was further developed a couple of weeks ago. One could argue that right now we are using version 2.3 of the page.
*I think that summary is worth for reference even if the rest of my proposal was ignominiously rejected. It is hard enough for one to search the history on their own... Why repeat the trouble? Waltham, The Duke of 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm tending to agree with His Grace, and thus change my vote to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots going on in this section: you're opposing 30 days from today? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I tentatively hypothesise that Wehwalt opposes deciding this now. I am myself a supporter of the change, but not yet. It's too soon. Waltham, The Duke of 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I can see that it might be best to reduce it to 30, or even 15, but we're moving too quickly and on too little information.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a point-changing discussions but how far in advance an article can be requested. It reads “Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled.” This was treated as be within the next 30 days from when the request was made not 30 days from last scheduled article. It was not done as part of the new main page representation points. Halgin (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I never understood why this rotation didn't work like DYK?, with a list of suggestions and a cue week, then have open for the next week's cue, so you can see possibly 14 days worth). That way, its not really "oh, but I wanted tuesday" "no, I wanted tuesday" kind of thing. Eh, its Raul's baby, and I don't really care. Just a musing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable topic proposal

I propose the following: That the one point given for Notable Topic be deleted, with retroactive effect, from July 22.

Right now, this is basically useless, because it is so broad, though Sandy states that it is actually intended to apply more narrowly. There have been proposals to add or subtract points for other things; since we do not want to have extremely complex instructions, this would open up some room.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been following these discussions with interest, without contributing so far, but here's a suggestion: Base it on the importance that is assigned by most wiki projects - e.g. 2 points for high or top importance, 1 for mid importance and zero for low importance. Only take the maximum value from one project - if an article is covered by two or more projects, these would not be cumulative. So today's article, Puerto Ricans in World War II, would gain 1 point, as it is rated mid-importance by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Any thoughts? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, but is it capable of being gamed?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In the case of dispute, there would be a need to check that whoever assessed the importance was independent of the article's FA nomination. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, so if one person raised the importance, he could keep hands off the TFA nomination, and the added point would surely be worth his lost support vote. How about if we were to say the level of importance at the time it became FA? Can easily look at the history of the talk page for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Or at least ensuring that the importance hasn't been unfairly increased in (say) the month prior to nomination at TFA. There may be legitimate cases where articles have been reassessed since gaining FA. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That would work for me, that any increase in importance since FA is subject to challenge, and an increase in the last thirty days it would not be counted at all. And if it happened to be 31 days, I think that would be pointed out and subject to oppose votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I've been paying attention lately to assessments at WP:WikiProject Texas, and a LOT of articles are improperly assessed for importance (they haven't been following the assessment guidelines laid out). In many cases the article contributor just sets the assessment. There are also many very tightly focused wikiprojects. Do we really want to give extra points to an article about a tiny facet of Texas A&M University, for example, just becase WikiProject Texas A&M thinks it is high importance? It also leaves articles that do not have a wikiproject supporting them at a disadvantage. I think this proposal could be very easily gamed. Karanacs (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we're back to the original proposal. Ax the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, axe it, partly because many people find the ephemera featured on the Main Page as or more intriguing than the mainstream "Notable" topics. Personally, my all time favourite, and which taught me quite a lot was 0.999... which isn't exactly a crucial maths topic. --Dweller (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that what Intel said 2 minus 1 was a few years ago?  :) But my thought is that the present criterion is pretty incomprehensible, and obviously is capable of several interpretations.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deletion, will catch up on the rest later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of my stated position in the section above that no point values should be changed until August, I'm willing to withdraw the proposal until then. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem that I have with that is it doesn't solve the problem. You could withdraw the King, we could add back Dickinson, and it could all be for nothing, because someone else could come along and knock off Dickinson again. Doesn't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant, withdraw the "delete the notable topic point" proposal. I'm content to let William take his chances with Raul. He seems to like British monarch articles, since, as far as I can see, neither Edward nor George came through this page, but were Raul selections.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Good gosh, I was totally on the wrong page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional scoring criterion idea

See also: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests § New proposed changes
.

Hi all. I think the new scoring criteria are excellent and hopefully very helpful to Raul. We've also, I believe, included certain elements to encourage people to write certain types of FA, particularly topics that are under-represented. I'm wondering if there's a way to also stimulate coverage of topics from different geographical regions. As the English language Wikipedia, it's widely understood that there's systemic bias in our coverage, with a preponderence of material covering USA, Britain and the English-speaking world.

Let's be grossly unfair and take this week's main pages as a possibly unrepresentative sample:

So, just one reflecting the non-English speaking world and 4 North American, 2 European, 1 Australian by zone.

NB I'm not knocking Raul's selections here, he works with what he's got, but as we've acknowledged, our criteria give us a helpful chance to improve diversity. As well as topic diversity, I'm therefore suggesting we offer extra points for regional, with 1 extra available for articles reflecting non English-speaking topics of origin and another 1 for Africa / Asia/ South or Latin America, which are so poorly served to-date.

I'm aware that to some extent, this will need to be subjective, but I think for most articles it'll be clear.

What do you guys think of this half-formed idea? --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would probably support either 1 additional point for non-English-speaking topics of origin or 1 or Africa/Asia/S. or Latin America, but probably not both (otherwise the Africa, etc topics get 2 extra points, and I'm not sure we want to do that). We'd also have to consider whether the point would get added for things like literature which are later translated into English and might become fairly well known in their English translation (such as (nonFA) The Three Musketeers). Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral. This is, after all, the English wikipedia. Presumably other wikipedias have local language focus on their TFA's.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt. People keep trying to present the English Wikipedia as some sort of global version. It is not. Close, but not quite. Waltham, The Duke of 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Erm, it's an encyclopedia, it should be encyclopedic. I'm not suggesting featuring articles in foreign languages, but articles about topics from non English-speaking lands. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it more fair that the articles be chosen by subject and not region? Palpatine isn't really special to the United States, for instance. Video games, also, tend to be without boundaries. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue of balance. I've read an interview with Jimbo, where they discussed the plethora of Pokemon articles (or say Simpsons episodes), many of which are FA and appear on the main page, yet cities of over ten million in Africa and Asia, take Karachi, or leaders of countries there aren't even GA. If there is a mechanism for encouraging work on important, though not core, articles from outside the anglophone world, I support it.--Patrick Ѻ 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I currently don't want to see more scoring criteria for topics from different geographical regions. The Quatermass Experiment was the only article listed was on this page. The "similar article on the main page” rules may help. They were just added There are 264 different languages version of Wikipedia.Halgin (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Except that Pokemon is Asian/Japanese. By declaring something "regional", you tend to actually declare its significant region. Items like Videogames and movies (except in some cases) are universal, and not regional. The example of a Star Wars character being from the United States is proven false when you have someone dressing up as one in England and attacking someone else while in costume. As you can see, entertainment easily crosses political boundaries. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, according to this and tis, Palpatine is not US, but New Zealand and Scottish. More evidence that political boundaries lead to absurdities. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the trouble with writing a FA on an non English speaking city like Karachi is that unless you can read the local languages, the references could be a problem. And as for Palpatine not being American, um, W is looking more like him every day.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That joke was kinda bad. You would have done better if you would have used Dick Cheney. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New underrepresented subject Health and medicine

 Done

There seems to be a new underrepresented subject at WP:FA called “Health and medicine”. It seems to have been form from the “Biology and medicine” list on 14 July 2008. So the list of underrepresented subject needs to be updated. Halgin (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Added (the split was based on a discussion that started last April and continued into May). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

 Done

I was going to start writing up a summary of the new, proposed changes above: does anyone care if I archive the first 31 sections, down to the discusson of Tibet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we get a bot to auto-archive this page. This page is pretty active, and I think it could use it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Still working on the summary. We put auto-archiving in place at WT:FAC, and I Hate It. It has rendered the archives very difficult to use, because threads aren't archived in chrono order, rather by order of last comment. On this page in particular, it's important to be able to follow discussions in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I hereby officially grant my written consent to the application of user SandyGeorgia's proposal, without any amendments, as this pertains to the archiving of the first thirty-one sections of this discussion page, including section 7 ("Archive?").
Seals, signatures, etc. etc. Waltham, The Duke of 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New proposed changes

The last adjustments to the page instructions were proposed on July 2 and implemented on July 10; on July 16, Raul scheduled through July 24, using all applicable requests on the request page (July 18 and 20), which opened up two slots. These slots were quickly occupied, initially by a hurricane and UK royalty. The King claimed a point (disputed) for "basic subject matter for a twelve-year old". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas and Peterloo Massacre then replaced Emily Dickinson and the hurricane. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As of this writing: Emily Dickinson, which enjoyed a large number of Support votes but had one Oppose, was removed, while Yao Ming, in honor of the Olympics, has only 2 points and is next to be replaced. Noble gas and William IV of the United Kingdom are requesting August 18 and 21, respectively: at least a month away. UK royalty articles were run on June 11 and on July 8, while an event like the Olympics gets no special points under date relevance (beyond the one point for date relevance). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There was also a lot of confusion about point tallies, leading us to add the points to the pending template, to encourage advance discussion of point tallies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This scheduling cycle revealed the following issues/weaknesses in the current system, and proposals for change:

Timing of changes

Timing of changes: under discussion, I proposed July 25 (which will be after Raul's next scheduling). (When discussing timing, if different per item, please refer to A through G below.)

A. Support percentage

A. An article with a large number of supports can be removed if only one oppose lowers its percentage of support, even when another article has few supports but no opposes.

Proposal Refine the percentage instruction: "If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes."
Comment What is meant by "refine"? And what would be the procedure if this were approved?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Put up specific proposed wording that others can support, oppose or discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose We should let the current system ride several more weeks, is too much aimed at curing Sandy's concern over Dickinson, and I suspect there would be gaming of the system.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Wehwalt, work on your WP:AGF; first notice. I opposed Dickinson; I have no pony in the race and this is not any disgruntlement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I've AGF, but you have several times stated that the King and Noble Gas should be off the page, and Dickinson back on. If disgruntlement is inappropriate, I will withdraw it, and substitute "concern." Better?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    You left off a piece; I've stated they should be off the page because they will clearly be able to make it on the page in the next round. Stomping your feet and Insisting that your article stay on the page to the exclusion of others is unbecoming and seems to be affecting your choices here, against the overall improvement of the page. Please evaluate the arguments on their merit, not your article, and if you're concerned that your article will be affected, you can specify longer timing on implementation. It is this sort of behavior which lends credence to the notion that the mainpage TFA scheduling can never be turned over to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    "My" article has not even been close to coming off, and I have offered to withdraw it. I responded to your other comments regarding my choices at some length below, but your statements are at variance with the fact that I have been trying to abolish or restate the Notable Topic point, which would cost "my" article the point that you seem to be the only one to think it should not have. As I say below, I repudiate your charge, and your charge is unfounded and at variance with my actual actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I struck the stomping per your interpretation of WP:CIV (not saying I agree with it, but I have no problem striking if it troubles you). Regarding your offer to remove your nom, my understanding of that exchange was that I thought you had offered to withdraw it, but you pointed out that I had misunderstood, and you had offered to withdraw the notability proposal, which is why I left it off this summary. Please re-read the exchange at Wikipedia talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Notable topic proposal; it looks pretty clear to me. At any rate, withdrawing one nom now doesn't address the long-term weakness in the system. It's unfortunate that discussion of page improvements degenerated into protection of one article on the page; it would be good to stay focused on long-term improvements to the system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I think we've been talking at cross purposes. Truce?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, and always :-) I see you removed some commentary; I'll leave my responses anyway because I don't generally delete comments after they've been responded to. Can we work as if the King will be grandfathered either way (as others have suggested in several cases), and try to think of future issues for the betterment of the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I may withdraw the King and resubmit him for September 8, but I would like to see discussion first if your two month rule is adopted, that it would not lose a point on those grounds. After all, it would be exactly two months, and so 62 days. And I'd like to let it ride a little longer and get more editors' reactions. But really, as I said, my opinions weren't dependent on the King. I withdrew basically the parts referring to language which you withdrew, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    There's no urgency in any of these discussions; we're many days from Raul's next scheduling, but I hope we aim to lessen the frustration of other editors during the next cycle. (Do we need to define months as 30 days?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't hear anyone banging on the door! :) I won't say to define months as 30 days, but we should be consistent in either using 30 day periods exclusively or month periods exclusively. So if we are scheduling 30 days ahead, we should change that to "one month" or else change the "month" periods to multiples of thirty days.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, for "safety" reasons, it might require a minimum of three opposes for this to kick in, just to make sure that one person with an agenda doesn't oppose without a good reason, and three in case they might try to game the system by bringing in a friend. It would just prevent anything from happening. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Please propose wording. Are you saying ... ?
    Replace "If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes" with ""If there is a tie, and a request has at least three opposes, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What I am saying is that there needs to be a minimum amount of opposes before the percentage counts, just as there should be a minimum amount of supports. Otherwise, people can easily game the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; we still have to find a way to give some guidance to editors when those conditions aren't met. We still need some wording that's better than what we've got. Should we just fall back on good 'ole "consensus", and not try to spell it out via percentage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus means to come to a mutual agreement that mixes both sides. This is a clear yes or no, which falls under voting. I'd contact Kim Bruning and find out what he would think. He seems to deal with the issue of voting, consensus, and decision making on Wikipedia quite often (and holds lectures on the topic). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but is one editor going to stick around indefinitely to enforce consensus here? The idea is to figure out if we can make this work without the need for referees; I'm not sure we can based on what we've seen so far. I'm not yet convinced we can leave it to independent editors judging consensus, because most editors come to this page for a reason (they want their slot). That's why we've been forced to nail down these points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Raul the ultimate referee? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't Raul given the community the option to put forward five requests, and then stayed out and let the community do that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Back in April when the points system started, someone proposed keeping articles that got a minimum amount of support with a table for support need to keep an article by time on the request page ( shown here). We can use this to figure out which one goes in a point tie. The one closest to the goal stays. I thought we should count both supports and opposes, so I changed it to net support and cut it by 25%.
time frame Net support goals
24 hrs 4
3 days 6
5 7
7 10
14 13

B. Timing too frequent

B. There is no point deduction for articles having run within two months of the requested date, so while some articles wait for a mainpage appearance, others can run every month.

Proposal Add a deduction to "Main page representation, "Within two months of requested date: –1 point"
I gotcha. Ok. Let me think about this. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment If we are going to do this (and I maintain my opposition), we should be consistent between "months" here and 30 day periods elsewhere, for example, the window in which requests can be made. I suggest that we either choose to have periods measured in months, or periods measured in multiples of thirty days. So if we took the option of measuring in months, we would allow requests within one month of today's date, etc., and if we took the other, we would change "two months" here to "sixty days".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we should move to 30 and 60 days throughout the page, eliminating vague definition of "month". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

C. Rare events

C. There is no point addition to accommodate rare date events (example, Olympics, solar eclipse, etc.), so a special event like the Olympics gets no additional points.

Proposal Add a point (or two?) for "Timing" to accommodate rare (not annual or bi-annual) events.
  • Support adding two points for "rare" events on July 25. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Dweller, one point or two, to be implemented when? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again, too much aimed at one specific case (Yao). I think this will have very limited application (Olympics, Presidential elections, World Cup, maybe the Obergammerau Passion Play, leap year) and after 2008, there will be almost no use for it, and it will fall moribund. I think this will get less use than the six month rule. Raul is aware of major rare events, no doubt and can schedule accordingly--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Lunar eclipse, solar eclipse, and so on. Please do not view this as a competition between your article and Yao Ming; the discussion is about weaknesses and issues affecting the page long-term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Sandy, I did no such thing. "My" article, as you insist on putting it (and I question the civility of that, since there is no ownership of articles and you imply I am either unaware or disregarding that). I would not have said that to you. As for eclipses, a quick glance at their articles reveals that lunar eclipses are, on average, annual, and solar rather more common.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - rare events can have a large range and pop up quite frequently. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ottava, pls specify when you would implement (pending consensus): immediately, July 25, or later, and whether you would add 1 point or 2? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't like to get into details like that. I support the above proposal, and if the details change slightly, then I still support it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. If you're going to do this, you have to adjust for the date connection point. Yao is currently claiming the one point for date connection. You should specify whether this point(s) is in addition to that, or in place of that (obviously you'd want two points if the latter). I still oppose this as premature, but I really don't have a problem with the idea. Also, it should be made clear that this is for present events, not, say, the anniversary of the Atlanta Olympics or some such, or the anniversary of the Transit of Venus observed by Cook and Banks. Those will have to rely on the normal one point date connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"Add a point (or two?)" was intended to mean it gets additional points beyond the already given 1 point for date relevance (in other words, "rare events" get a total of 2 or 3 date relevance points). Agree it is not intended for anniversaries; it's intended for one-time, "rare" (not every year) events. If any of these proposals gain consensus or get close to it, we can put up the exact wording for fine-tuning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The solar eclipse page says "They occur somewhere on Earth every 18 months on average according to NASA." The Olympics happens every two years. The Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics each happens every 4 years but are off set by 2 years. They have different sports in them.

D. Basic subject matter

D. The definition of "basic subject matter for a twelve-year old" is vague enough that it generates dispute.

Proposal Work on a better definition for "basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old".
  • Support I can hardly object to a proposal for a better definition. The controversy will come when a new definition is posited by someone as "better". I think it's important that we retain a notability point at a level below vital articles (it helps slow the rate at which we get pop-culture articles, if nothing else). Adacore (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    No, the idea here is to propose wording we can all support/oppose and discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ah - that makes considerably more sense, sorry for the confusion. Unfortunately I'm drawing a blank - I'll leave it to someone more imaginative / eloquent. Adacore (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    How about **--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I think it may be impossible to get the precision we want from the child's studies angle. How about using wikiproject importance gradings - allocate a point to articles with a rating of "top" importance in one or more wikiprojects? I can see numerous problems with this just offhand (minority projects will lead to minority articles getting points for top importance), but it would at least be quantifiable and remove any uncertainty. Adacore (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    If you drop the "if only slightly", it works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Fine, if you want. I put that in there to eliminate any quibbles that a 12 year old might not study noble gases per se when he studied the periodic table.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Can we tighten it to: "basic subject matter that a child in most developed nations would study by the age of 12"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    We could, but you're likely to get arguments over whether it is "basic subject matter". If you like the phrase, I won't stand in the way, but I would omit the word "basic". After all, if it is being studied by a 12 year old kid, can't be very advanced.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Object I like the subjectiveness of the current wording. :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why not change this to an article with a mid-core priority in Wikiprojects that cover the following: Geography, History, Math, Science, Literature? Those seem to be the core subjects of younger students, and if its at the top priority, than chances are they will study it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Object to any dependence on Project ratings, which are inconsistent and subjective and often outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As is the concept of what a 12 year old would know. Might as well make a subjective thing we can accurately identify on Wikipedia instead of having the above arguments. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - this would exclude articles that are basic concepts but that schools do not address, such as religion or morality, sexuality and matters of sexual orientation. Just to be clear that people here are ok with that. Or, if we can get creative and amend it somehow. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Moni, can you propose alternate wording? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me think on this. Our gauge, a 12-year-old child, is exposed to basic information in schools. However, there is basic information that is not covered in schools due to its inflammatory nature. For instance, I can see that Birmingham campaign, an article about civil rights demonstrations by African Americans, is used a lot by schools. I plan to bring the article on Stonewall riots to FAC soon, but that article, about protests by drag queens and gay people, would not be covered in schools, though it is the seminal event of the LGBT rights movement. I guess it's the seminal event/ superlative nature of the subject that should be captured in this sentence. It should be most important to a subject. Would the article for Sin be able to get points, assuming it was at FA status? That's a very basic and important concept in many religions, but not covered in school. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There is more than one way to skin a cat: we could view those articles under the points for a similar article hasn't run within three or six months. I doubt that we'd have many similar articles, so maybe you want to leave them out of the 12-yo issue, and address them in the "similar articles" section, giving points to topics that don't come up often? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment How about this language: "Subject matter which it would be expected that a twelve-year-old child in most developed nations would be aware of either through school study or through other means." If you want to say "Basic subject matter . . . " I'll prestate support for the modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what that is trying to say at all; more vague than the original, would give the point to just about anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'll go back to my original language, which I modify to try to address Moni's concern:
    • "a subject which it would be expected that a child in most developed nations would study, or learn about outside of school, by the age of 12."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    There's very little that a 12-yo wouldn't learn about outside of school; still much more vague than what we currently have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'll take one more swing at it, and then let someone else bat:
    "elementary subject matter, learned by most children by the age of twelve in most developed nations, whether taught in school or learned outside of it."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm still worried about the "learned outside of it", because that covers almost everything for 12-yos. I hope we can cover Moni's concern for "less traditionally taught" topics by allowing the points under Item E (below). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    E is the six month deletion proposal. But I think the nominator would have to achieve consensus that this is something kids everywhere learn about. It might cover sex, but it won't cover Bradman.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I've been clear. Bradman shouldn't get the points (it's a high school curriculum item). For Moni's concerns about topics that aren't traditionally covered as basic subject matter for 12-yos, and considering the examples she gives, I'm saying those articles will be unique enough that they can get the 1 to 2 points under "Main page representation" because nothing similar has run on the mainpage in three or six months. So, I'm reversing my position on Point E, saying now that we should keep the six-month bonus points, to allow for diversity of the kinds of topics raised by Moni, and then we don't have to worry if these topics aren't taught as basic subject matter in schools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Then let me restate my language: "elementary subject matter, learned in school by most children by the age of twelve in most developed nations." Does that sound good? I think religion would be covered, after all, school would include religious school or sectarian schools, and certainly in the US (I won't try to speak for other countries) a majority of kids go to one if they don't go to the other, at least at some stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Object I've given a lot of thought to this over the last few days and I think either the points should be scrapped altogether or the definition should be "basic subject matter that would be on the school curriculum in most developed countries and that a sixteen year old would have studied." I think the 12 yo concept is too controversial and will always cause dispute however it's worded as the standards differ across the world. I have just been looking at a primary school curriculum in the UK here and if we take history as an example, they study ancient history (the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans), invaders and settlers of the British Isles (Anglo Saxons, Romans, Vikings), World War II, The Great Fire of London, Florence Nightingale, The Tudors, the Victorians and then some miscellaneous items such as seaside holidays (a great British tradition being an island nation) and toys of the past. You may notice that there is nothing about the American War of Independence, The American, Civil War or other modern world history events, this sort of thing would be studied in secondary school. That means if someone claimed a point for an article about American History or other important events in world history, I would dispute that this was taught across the world by the age of 12, and I'm sure that would not go down well. Also, how am I to know what is taught in other countries by the age of 12? - it took me some time to find out what was taught in the UK and I wouldn't know where to start with other countries. I must also point out that "sixth grade" and "seventh grade" are not terms used at all in the UK, and they seem to be applied differently in different countries anyway, so many of the discussions that go on here don't even use terms that are common across the world. I think that by including the whole school curriculum up to the age of 16 you would get a lot more commonality of experience and less argument. Richerman (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would agree that if we cannot reach consensus on new language here, we should at least consider abolishing the point. And yes, editors used in discussion, terms like fifth grade. However, I would imagine UK and other users, knowing we were talking about age 12, would simply substitute in their own minds the UK equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually I wasn't quite correct on the grades as I misunderstood the comments about fifth and seventh grade above, however the point I was making is that it's difficult to compare education across the world when we don't even use the same terms. What kids learn in primary and secondary schools is going to be a different mix in different countries and so difficult to pin down. Richerman (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New "Basic subject matter" proposal

To avoid vague wording on the "basic subject matter for twelve-yos" point, a concrete reference source would help. If we use inclusion in a children's encylopedia as the basis for the point, there can be no disputes. I propose we make this point contingent upon the topic being included in a freely available online children's encyclopedia that we can all agree on. The index of the Scholastic Children's Encyclopedia is available online. As Moni pointed out elsewhere, it may leave out some topics not taught in schools, but we can pick up a point for that in the Main page representation point. Also, if Scholastic is not viewed as diverse enough (in terms of non-English), we can pick up a point in the non-English diversity proposal, G. This may not be a perfect proposal, but we need something concrete to help avoid disputes over the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to use *just* that one - you can pick several reference works, and give a point an article that is listed in any of them. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I just found a couple more online and lost them in our edit conflict. There are other online indexes via Amazon.com search on Children's encyclopedia, or perhaps someone owns a complete children's encyclopedia set. Based on what my searches turned up, though, we would need to separate "children's" from "student's" in order to hit the 12-yo mark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Found this set (not online), and another online index here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Be careful, an index is not a table of contents. Additionally, we need to be careful not to be US-centric. If Joe DiMaggio is in there, Donald Bradman should be too, since Bradman is probably a greater figure for his country than DiMaggio was for his (debatable, of course, but that is the point).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a brilliant idea. As has already been said you need to use more than one set as they can be somewhat biased towards the part of the world where they're published. For instance the first one lists many American states and cities but no European cities (not even capital cities) or English counties, whereas the second one does at least have some of the major cities listed. I presume this would be the same for other parts of the world too. Also, the books on Amazon will change as time goes on. I don't envy anyone who has to plough through those indexes though - they don't make them that easy to read! Richerman (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I like this notion, subject to 1) we find and agree on several sources, and 2) I would support it in conjuction with the diversity proposal (G), to offset the diversity issues. We need something, and this is the best idea yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but again, it should be a table of contents, not an index. If something is mentioned offhand, and shows up in the index, that is not the same as an article on it. If we can find a set of tables of content we can agree on, then I think this is an excellent solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking on board the point about the table of contents, which I agree with, I found these three, all of which have searchable contents; Usborne Children’s encyclopaedia, Ultimate book of knowledge, Usborne Encyclopaedia of Science Maybe there should be a list which can be added to over time. Richerman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the concern I have is, this is creeping back in the direction of "if any 12 year old, anywhere, could do a paper on the subject, it gets the point". I had thought we were moving towards a "most 12 year olds in developed countries study it" standard. If we adopt tables of contents or indices from a number of encyclopidiae around the world, and say "if it is in ONE of them, you get the point" then we have gone back and effectively said something which is studied, or at least referred to, in one nation, meets the standard. Is that where we want to go?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly object to any inclusion of the term "developed countries" in this definition. Let's not reinforce our systemic bias by enshrining it in our main page guidelines! If 12-years-olds in Bangladesh study something that 12-year-olds in France don't, that should be fair game all the same. I like the "children's encyclopedia" check and balance on this. (Still, I have no problem with "a 12-year-old could write a report on it for school" either.) — Dulcem (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to abolish notable topic point

The current definition is unworkable, because the plain language of the rule is applicable to almost everything. I do not believe any workable substitute has been proposed. Concerns have been expressed about complexity of the rules, that they are not comprehensible and the procedure is intimidating. I think that abolishing this point will do no harm, and will simplify the process (rather than people searching through multiple encyclopedias and then saying "Well, it's in the World Book. I formally propose simply to abolish this one point, and as proposer indicate my support. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - I was considering proposing this myself, following the discussion earlier. Not only because of the difficult of defining "notable topic", but also for the reason that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform all readers, not just 12 year-olds, and there should be no bias against less well-known subjects. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Alternative idea Article must have counterparts in at least nine other foreign language wikipedias, adding up to ten total. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
An awful lot of work. For articles on people, maybe not so much. For words where the spelling is going to differ quite a lot (and google translator little help) , especially as you leave the romance langugage area, it's going to be an awful pain. I see nothing that says foreign wikipedias are expanding from the basics out, so what if the biggest beneficiaries of this are video games?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It's actually not any work at all. A bot automatically updates a list of all language versions of every article on the left side of the screen. All we have to do is count what's listed. Wrad (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Take this article for example. On the left you see the wikipedia puzzle globe thing, then below that the navigation box, then the search box, then the interaction box, then the toolbox, and finally the list of all the different languages the article is in. A bot automatically updates the list whenever a new language is created. Easy as pie. Wrad (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your proposal. In that case, we can welcome as basic subject matter Donkey Kong (video game) 16 languages, Airplane (film) 11 languages, and Foot fetish 17 languages (note: I came upon that one because I was hoping Polyester (film) would qualify, which it didn't, and this was one click away.) Yao, William, and Noble Gas would qualify under this proposal, Shea and Peterloo would not.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
How about 20, then? I don't have a problem with Yao, William, and Noble Gas getting the point and the others being left out. Seems to me that 20 would be pretty difficult to rig. A lot of articles have 10 I suppose. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Each of them would qualify at 20, as well, with Yao the first to drop out at 23. I don't think what you are suggesting is a bad idea, actually rather good, but I'd kinda like to see the Notable Topic point dropped, then we can begin again, rather than entwining it further in what is now a mess of proposals and counterproposals.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the counterpart in other Wikis relates to the intent of this point. Neither am I convinced we need to give up just yet, so I'm not ready to abolish the point or count other Wikis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
How about the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded instead? Halgin (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That isn't bad either. But can't we first have an up/down vote on getting rid of the Notable Topic point, and THEN decide what to replace it with? We've got so many proposals running now that few people are bothering to vote, and it seems likely everything will fail for lack of consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on Wiki is rarely defined by straight up and down votes, and there are few regulars who frequent this page. I suspect we'll get more clarity over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

E. Within six months

E. It appears unlikely that the "Within six months of requested date: 2 points" will ever be applied, so it may be clutter in the instructions.

Proposal Drop the "Within six months of requested date" line.

F. 30-day period

F. The request period (30 days from the last scheduled article) is five weeks out; a long planning horizon, not reflective of the way Raul schedules.

Proposal Change the request period from "the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled" to "the next 30 days from today".
Discussion capped, replaced by alternate below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too soon to make changes, and I think this is specifically directed against the William article, which will be within 30 days in only three days anyway. I actually think a shorter period (15) days will be good in the long run, as getting higher throughput for articles, but not until we've let the current system run further (only eight days since last changes!) and not aiming specifically at one article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Please work on your WP:AGF, second notice. Since it won't affect William, it can't be "specifically directed against" it. If it's too soon to make changes, you can still say if you support or disagree in principle, and specify timing for implementation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Sandy, I have assumed good faith. But you began proposing rule changes within minutes of stating that you opposed the William article on the ground that it was too close to the William article, which would specifically affect that article. You've several times (if you want diffs, that's fine, but it is still on this page) stated that your proposal would affect "the King and Noble Gas". Noble Gas got within 30 days at midnight last night.
And I'm going to say this: You've given me a second AGF warning without giving me a chance to react to the first one, which I think I did appropriately. That's not appropriate use of your powers as an administrator, and if necessary, I will take it up in another venue. And respectfully, it is not a violation of good faith to say that "I think this is specifcally directed against the William article" since the date of implementation is still up for grabs. You have stated repeatedly that you wanted the King and Noble Gas off the page as too far out, and Dickinson back on. That makes it fair comment. Your warnings were based on your own words and unwarranted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Psst - warnings aren't administrative powers. If she blocked you, then you can complain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
How can I block someone, btw? Wehwalt, it's this kind of thing that has affected this page long term and demonstrates that the community can't manage the mainpage. I have stated that Noble gas and the King don't need to be on the page now because they were five weeks out when they were added to the page, and they clearly have enough points to make it in to the next round. Make the system work so that other articles aren't unfairly locked out. Your declarations of support and oppose are looking WP:POINTy, to assure the King runs; entirely unnecessary here since those requests are so far away. We're trying to fix issues in the system to make it work better for all articles, not just your article. You're providing an example of the kinds of issues some of us feared if more mainpage scheduling were turned over to the community (people defending their requests even if it means taking out other worthy choices, and even if their article could be added to the page later or run at a different date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. Look, you and Wrad basically came up with the latest modification of the system. There wasn't a word anywhere about when to add. I acted completely above board, William sat on the template, he was first there, until I added him. There were two vacancies when I added him. I disclosed in my statement of support when the last British King article ran. I repudiate, and I would use stronger words, but I personally believe in WP:CIV the suggestion that my votes have been designed to benefit the article. I prestated, yesterday, that I did not think we should change the system yet, and you yourself had stated that we needed to wait several of Raul's adding cycles (you changed your mind when I pointed out your language to you). In spite of that blanket statement, I proposed eliminating the point for Notable Topic, yesterday, which would have cost William a point, but you shot that down. And last night, I proposed language, which you found generally acceptable, on twelve year olds, which also would have cost William that point, because no matter what else, twelve year olds across the developed world don't study him. Your statement that I'm being pointy (which I will refrain from making back to you in an effort not to escalate things) seems inconsistant with actual actions. The only place where I have deviated from my previously expressed position has been to try to cost "my" article points. I think your statement and my actions are at some variance.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Many misstatements of fact here; I'll pick just the first one. Previous changes to the page were discussed over a long period of time among many editors, and the proposal was generated by consensus and linked from the main page here for eight days before it was implemented. It was not me and Wrad cooking something up in isolation. Whatever you choose to do with this page, whether you want to discuss improvements or not, you've already shown that the page will degenerate into turfwars and editwars if left to the community. I only had to observe through one cycle to understand why this page is controversial. If you disagree with a proposal because it might affect your article, but agree with it in principle, you can state as others have (implement but grandfather the King). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it was a cabal. I'm simply stating that you were a part of the process, supported the thirty day rule, and now you are saying it was "unfair" that an article was added at or near that mark. And I'll be happy to provide diffs, if you feel I'm misrepresenting the facts stated above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
My healthy expectations about the use of the pending template and other changes were naive. I really expected that when editors could see that the system was fair and that their articles (that were a month away) had enough points to make it in the next round of scheduling, they would back off rather than jumping to grab a slot as soon as they were eligible, leaving room for other articles (with earlier dates) to get in. I was wrong. It is what it is, and it shows why the mainpage can't be run by the community. If we can't share in a way that gives everyone a fair shot, we're not there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidently, I've commented that ideally, I am minded to think that a reduction to 15 days might be a very good idea. It would dramatically increase the number of articles that "win", that is, are still on the project page when Raul schedules (of course we can't control what Raul selects). But I would like to see the system run a little further before we tamper with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Recommend it says "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days and have not yet been scheduled." Having something on this page for five or six weeks is too long. Don't think we should remove current articles. Waiting until July 25 or even July 21 will not effect current articles. However, if more articles are scheduled then new articles could be on the page at the time. Halgin (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal F. to make better use of 30-day period

The concern is that the next 30-day period fills up quickly as soon as Raul schedules, sometimes with articles that are five weeks away, while articles that were requesting an earlier date are bumped even when they make sense and have support. The goal is to find a way to encourage articles towards the end of the 30-day planning horizon to defer submitting a request, so that other articles that want an earlier date have a better chance at getting in.

The current (pending) requests that led to concern over how the 30-day period is being used are:

(There are other pending articles, but with only 1 or 2 points, they would be replaced, so I didn't include discussion of them in this proposal.)

User:Wehwalt has come up with an idea to encourage leaving slots open for articles in the first 15 days, while providing a point incentive for delayed submittals for date requests in the second 15 days of the 30-day period. This alternate proposal replaces the current 30-day proposal, as it accomplishes the same objective. Using the current example, this would provide a bonus point motivation for William IV to be moved off the page and the other 3-pointers to wait, which would allow a 2-pointer (e.g.; Emily Dickinson) back on the page. In other words, requestors willing to risk the wait are rewarded with a bonus point.

Add new point criterion
  • Delayed submittal bonus point

Requestor submitted article to the talk page pending template at least 30 days before the requested date and discussed the points on the talk page, but did not enter the request on this page until 15 days or less before the requested date: 1 point[1]

  1. ^ This is to encourage talk page discussion of points, a more rapid turnover of articles from the project page, and to prioritize space among the five requests for articles requesting earlier dates. Articles are only eligible for the bonus point(s) if they meet the above criterion, AND were listed on the template on the talk page thirty days in advance of the date requested. Articles which request one of multiple dates are not eligible for the bonus point, and the bonus may only be claimed for the article if the article was not requested previously on the project page within the 90 days before the request.
  • Support implementation as soon as consensus is developed, possibly by July 23, grandfathering in the articles mentioned above as currently in pending template even if they don't reach the 30-day threshhold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I see this as not only doing what Sandy wanted (this grew out of a considerable back and forth on her talk page), but it will also increase the number of articles which will reach Raul, what I termed in another post as "winners". In other words, we're making more efficient use of what we've got and making for fewer battles over the space.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • support - RoyBoy 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I grudgingly support this proposal, considering that, if applied correctly, it will result in a faster turnover rate and nominations made closer to their requested date. I also suggest that we should contact the Board of Trustees to request an appropriation for legal services; the complexity of the page will soon require a specialist to interpret the by-laws and decide on the points. Or, alternatively, we could add a little bit of documentation to the "pending" template. Waltham, The Duke of 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

G. Non-English diversity

G. A preponderence of material covers USA, Britain and the English-speaking world.

Proposal Add a point for articles reflecting non English-speaking topics of origin and another point for Africa / Asia/ South or Latin America, which are poorly served to-date.
  • Support What an outstanding idea! --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC) <grins>
  • Support great suggestion (I presume you refer to the Anglosphere?). --Jza84 |  Talk  11:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think it would have the desired effect. Point might be used , but I think the idea is to get people to bring such articles up to FA in the hope they'll be TFA, and one point just isn't going to cut it. Besides, the real barrier there is foreign language references.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking at June, I see eight articles that qualify (European birds presumably do) and about 15 which clearly do not because they are about the English speaking world, the remainder are science and similar article which don't respect international boundaries. In May, I count 11 which qualify, 13 which do not, and the rest not applicable. In April, seven for (counting Celine Dion as Quebecois), 15 against, and eight not applicable. A couple are close calls, and your mileage may vary. But I don't see the problem here. I'm not going to bestir myself to figure out how many of these came through the request page and how many were initiated by Raul, but it may well be that you have a better chance of having your article actually selected by Raul if it is a foreign article in his effort to keep up main page diversity, meaning no incentive would be necessary anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on reasons I expressed below added to the notion that countries like South Africa are English speaking, or a country like India might have an "English speaking topic", so the idea "English-speaking" is just inappropriately phrased. Also, you have video games which are popular in the English speaking world, but many come from non-English speaking countries. There are so many cross culture/cross language topics that I can't even finish with the breadth of the problem with this language. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Could we instead have a "page view diversity"? We could look at how many hits a page gets normally, and if it is a topic that seems to get a lot less views than, lets say, a President or a Celebrity, then they would take priority. Instead of getting "points", their previous month's hit is put up, and if one has a significant amount lower (lets say below 50%) then it could gain a few points in comparison. I'd rather see a topic that people don't know about become featured to educate, than, say, something that is known but "foreign". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think that TFA requests are the reason for the low preponderence of material ouside the English-speaking world on the English languages version of Wikipedia. It cause the readers and writers use English. There are 264 different languages version of Wikipedia. Non-english reader abd writers use them. By the way this page don’t pick most of TFAs anyway. Is there a list of FA by language? Halgin (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sports FAs are especially prominent examples of rather extreme Anglocentricism. However, we should also include Europe in the over-represented category, not just "English-speaking countries". The Africa/Asia/Latin America bit sounds like great stuff to me. Peter Isotalo 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Erm, yes and no. Sport is very popular all over the world... but I take your point. It'd be good to see the likes of Hugo Sanchez, Muttiah Muralitharan, Kabbadi, Buzkashi and Roger Milla etc on Main Page. Some of those bios are of people who play sports popular in English-speaking countries, but that's not the point: football is King in most of Africa and South/Latin America and cricket is an alternative religion to billions of Asians. Wonder what's popular in Antarctica? Probably Chess. Lol. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

July 25 implementation discussion

I don't see consensus for any additions as of the proposed July 25 date; perhaps we should see how the next cycle or two goes and see if any consensus develops, and then restart discussions on any items that might look promising? There are four (unanimous) supports on the Alternate proposal F., but I'm not sure that's strong enough to add it yet (since one editor supports begrudgingly). Thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal on significant contributors was added with 3 unanimous support. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 4#Proposal_on_significant_contributors Halgin (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
At a time when we had a lot more eyes on the discussion than we have now; if you're saying that you think the consensus on alternate F is strong enough already, and if others agree, it doesn't bother me. Just asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe put a note on the project page saying that there seems to be strong support for this proposal, and discussion will close, say in 48 hours, and if it is still unanimous then, consider it to have achieved consensus. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever; I don't see consensus. One editor added "begrudging", another editor claimed to be supporting only because he claimed it was what I wanted, and there aren't a lot of people following this discussion. I also think the footnote that is attached to it is way too long and offputting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, on the second one, I think you're referring to me, and I said it ACCOMPLISHED what you wanted, and it was far from my only reason, as I stated in my statement of support, and as we discussed on your talk page. I mean, it was my idea! I usually support my ideas. And as for the footnote, I really don't see how that affects consensus. And as for the begrudging supporter, I know we don't vote here, but I begrudgingly voted for my candidate in the last Presidential election, and they managed to count it without the "begrudging".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(after ec) Yes, but we don't "vote" on Wiki, we come to consensus, so "begrudging" means something here. Also, after we proposed that footnote, complaints began to appear on this page about instruction creep and the length of the instructions, so I have a new concern that it may be too wordy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry abou the ec. I suggest we do what I suggested, with an additional note that any instruction creep concerns specifically related to this proposal be addressed by editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Making things clearer

 Done

As a newcomer to this process, can I suggest a couple of things that would make it less daunting?

  1. Move the section on "a similar article appeared on the same page" to the end, and start it with "points should be deducted for" as it's very easy to miss the minus signs.
  2. In the "adding requests" section, explain how to find out when a similar article was on the main page - it took me quite some time clicking on different tools to find out how to do this.
  3. In note 3 after "...has fewer than 50 articles.." remove "currently" and add "The categories which currently qualify are.." The way the sentence reads at the moment, it's not clear whether those are all the categories or just the ones that qualify.
  4. Expand the sentence in note 4 to read something like "similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FA. i.e. two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example; two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar."
  5. As there are only 5 articles at any one time, reorder the summary chart so that the next likely candidate for removal is at the bottom, and point this out in the text under "Adding requests". I know I should have followed the note in the comments box but there were a number of conflicting considerations - one of which was caused by my getting the date wrong - doh!! My only excuse is that I was trying to get in between edit conflicts at 2am when I was tired, and I got in a bit of a panic. Richerman (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I numbered your points for response. I think 1, 3 and 4 are uncontroversial, so I'll make those changes. On 2, what tools did you use? The only way I know is to browse the archives. (Except that similar articles could also be in different categories: example, atom and Noble gas.) On 5, I disagree because the next removal changes, and constantly re-ordering is a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem I had was finding the difference between the lists of featured articles and the archives for articles that had been on the front page. Eventually if found if I went to "this months queue" under "Featured article tools" I could browse the "todays featured article archive" from there and just looked for anything that seemed similar. Thanks (in advance) for making the changes Richerman (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In other words, it's not a tool you have, rather that you want a link to the archives provided with the instructions? I'll get on these in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's right - now I'm not being clear :-) I meant the tools on the project page. Richerman (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping you had a trick for finding TFAs, because the only way I know to verify these points is to search through archives (a real pain in the neck :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the instructions to cover points 1 thru 4; pls have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly looks clearer to me now, we'll have to see what others think. My only other suggestion would be that the last sentence in note 4 could be "Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, atom and Noble gas".
 Done Made that adjustment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks Richerman (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman, August 27

Dweller, I've been adding point tallies on the pending template inside HTML comments, so we can uncover any potential issues in advance:[2] can you summarize your seven points there to kick off this example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all ready in my sandbox --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Higher School Certificate doesn't apply to 12-yos, so I think I would challenge that Notability point, unless you have more info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree. Six points, especially if we are putting the notability point on an international basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well - Bradman could now be nominated, but that would knock Yao Ming off, and I think we're generally agreed that we want to keep that one. I think either we need a more flexible system or Sandy needs to use her executive powers in cases like this. Adacore (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that it should be left up to requesters. Unless there is a serious breakdown in the system, we should make rules, sit back, and rely on the common sense of editors. And so far, people (rightly in my view) appear content to await vacancies, though either Planet or Bradman could knock Yao for a loop.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Standard disclaimer (and as many times as this comes up here, I guess I'll have to answer :-) I have no "executive" or any other powers on this page; I am here as any other editor. I came because the page was out of control; I decided to watch through several cycles to see what was going on. In the case of Bradman, there is no need knock Ming off the page, since Bradman will likely make it onto the page in the next round of scheduling. It's an issue of whether the community can share and approach the page logically, rather than grabbing a slot as soon as eligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it will take a little time for them to trust the system. Unfortunately, the old grab and hold system did lead people to grab a spot as soon as they could.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yao Ming may not be the lowest. Points for Peterloo Massacre need to be reviewed because of the scheduling of history of Solidarity (see talk at New articles scheduled in the queue). And on the page. However, I don't think Bradman should be scheduled before July 27. Halgin (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping we'll see a huge stroke in maturity on this page, and the Fires will actually be able to get a slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we have consensus on the "holding off" proposal, we might even be able to squeeze in another article without prejudicing the Fires.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Sandy. I assumed that since Raul picks around half the articles on the mainpage you'd have some say in the matter too. Adacore (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize whatsoever, Adacore; I just have to clarify whenever it comes up so that there's no misunderstanding about my input here. I have nothing to do with TFA/R, and my input here is as any other editor, no more, no less. I'm Raul's delegate at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking ahead: percentage removes

Looking ahead (via the pending template), there are four three 2-pointers in the pipeline. The issue about which to remove next relative to percentage of supports or opposes may become a problem if it's not sorted before these hit. Can we try to sort this now instead of when they come up? The four articles have only a date connection, no other points: Yellowstone fires of 1988, Aug 20; Dwarf planet, August 24; 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, September 10; Ann Bannon, September 15. If they appear at the same time, next to remove may be determined on Support/Oppose (unless some of them are missing negative points for similar articles having been run recently). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Ann Bannon is only a one-pointer; anyway, point is still valid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I solved the hurricane: I think it gets an additional 2 points for promoted more than two years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Are Dwarf planets basic subject matter for twelve-year-olds? I can't find any way to give the Fires any more points; can anyone else look? Does the "nothing similar in three or six months" fit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The closest I can find to a natural diseaster is 1999 Sydney hailstorm on April 14. So, Yellowstone fires of 1988 gets 1 point for no similar article within three months. Does anyone disagree that Dwarf planets gets a point for basic subject matter for 12-yos (they all study the planets)? This still makes them tied up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That brings up a point: what the hell is this "subject matter for a twelve year old" qualification? It's nebulous and not at all clear to different people (I did a report on global warming when I was twelve, but I also did reports on the Olympics, and Halo: Combat Evolved). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That's why we're trying to sort it (above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking ahead to another one: Battle of Warsaw (1920), August 13; Start of battle, 3 pts (1 for date connection, 2 for promoted more than 2 years ago). July 6 was a War article, July 17 is Puerto Ricans in WWII. Is Puerto Ricans in World War II similar enough for the 2-point deduction (similar within a month), and this highlights another case where if we had a 1-point for a similar article within two months, we'd deduct for Russian-Circassian War on July 6. Can we begin trying to sort these points in advance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that battles and wars are similar, and I think all three would be related. I'd think it would be a two point deduction. As for dwarf planets, they didn't have those when I was in junior high. Do you think they now just teach the eight planets, or go on to the dwarf planets as well? Textbooks may take some time to catch up with the IAU.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Warsaw was fought from 13 to 25 August 1920. So date could move. I was going to use August 16 when the Polish counter-offensive started or August 18 when the Soviet ordered a retreat but I didn't want to complete with the articles listed for those days. I have not problem moving it to date of another engagement. I didn't see Puerto Ricans in World War II as similar enough for the 2-point deduction. I saw it as about soldiers and units not battles both are about war but they are not the same. It is similar to the Poet and Novel reasoning used earlier, both are Literature but they are not the same. I have not problem with the similar Russian-Circassian War because the Russian/soviets fought in both. I don’t support the rule. (Halgin (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
Reasonable points. I feel that we're making it up as we are going along! I would tend to agree, one point then, if that is approved.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If it moves to a later date (per the range specified in the pending list), no deduction. What are we making up, these are items in the instructions? We're clarifying them in advance so we don't have a big to-do about figuring out points later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! We agree then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nergaal is claiming a point for contributor history at Dwarf Planet, but Noble gases is also on the page, and he was a contributor.[3] I believe Nergaal has had other TFAs. I think Dwarf Planet has only two points, and I don't support replacement of Yao Ming, which enjoys unanimous support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I take it you approve of my removal of the nomination as a sixth nomination? Sandy, one problem I see is that the instruction language at the top of the project page is a little unclear. It speaks of replacing if your article has more points than another article, but then goes on to speak of what happens in case of a tie. I really think the intent there is in case a proposed article has 3 points, and there are two two-pointers previously nominated, how you settle which is to be removed. I don't think the intent is to replace one two pointer with another (I may be wrong). Perhaps a little clarification is in order?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what we're tying to sort out in the percentage section (A) above; we really need to nail it down better. The best old case of this is Dickinson. It had one oppose (which I entered to test the system), and a gazillion Supports. It enjoyed consensus at 2 points, so shouldn't be replaced except by a 3-pointer. Same for Yao Ming. Our wording on percentage support is off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I've seen your point. I am trying to figure out some system for retention that wouldn't be subject to gaming. For example, maybe an article with at least a .800 support percentage and, say, eight supports, could only be replaced by an article with two more points than it (it would effectively have a bonus point).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
          • The problem is that, no matter what wording we choose, an article that has been on the page longer may have more supports than a newer article. The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to fall back on broad definitions of consensus, but from what I'm observing of this page, the issues occur because editors cycle through here with conflicting goals and limited understanding of the page, so "consensus" will be elusive. I'm stumped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Find a partial answer that you like, try it on for size, and adjust as good faith on this page increases. If it doesn't, there are larger issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is with 5 max nominations?

Why 5 noms for 30 days? What is the point of it? Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To make the page manageable; history shows it goes to hundreds of requests without limits, since there are more than 950 articles which haven't been on the main page. You currently have Noble gases on the request page; the intent is to allow for diversity and leave room for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
But the present 5 noms drag forever! To me it looks like a nom is listed there 30 days before the date and stays there all those 30 days, even if there is a strong support. Also, I really thought that Dwarf planet would fit perfectly with that day. There should be a more efficient way to nominate articles for TFA than squeezing it in those 5 spots. Nergaal (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
How about not allowing noms that do not have at least x points (unless there are no noms on the page)? Nergaal (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that as the system becomes stable and people trust it, they'll be willing to nominate later. Once some queries I've raised are determined, I may well pull the King nomination, but I'm not at that stage yet. At a later date, I think some thought should be given to lowering the time period to 15 days, to make more efficient use of the five nominations Raul has given us. (actually, if we lowered it to five days, we could propose someone every day within the rules Raul has laid down, but I think that would be pushing it too far.).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Even if Wehwalt pulls the King nomination, and even if other proposed changes are enacted to the page, Dwarf planet won't be a priority per the points already established by other articles (see the pending template at the top of this page). Nergaal, you have Noble gases on the request page; there are more than 950 article and many editors waiting for mainpage slots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, a solar system article ran in June; there is not an additional point for mainpage representation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

pending template

I would like to suggest an addition to the project page. After "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled" add "although it would be helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), up for discussion on the pending template up to 60 days before the requested date." Richerman (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you. Richerman (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed another

An editor requested Coonskin (film) as a sixth request, which I promptly removed. By my count, it gets one point for date relevance (anniv. of release), one for a one-year FA, and probably loses two for being within 30 days of Palpatine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:WBFAN and see that Ibaranoff appears to have never had a TFA; Ibaranoff, you should pick one of your articles with the highest point tally, and get it onto the pending template 30 to 60 days in advance. By doing that, other editors will take it into consideration in advance and relative to other film requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Planet and dwarf planet

How does planet get the two points for the anniversary on August 24;[4] I don't see how those points apply to planet because of the definition change, although they could apply to dwarf planet. What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Iffy. That was the date on which the 2006 definition of planet was passed. Given our liberality in giving an anniversary point to Shea, I'd have to say that this is at least as relevant. Do we deduct any points if Shea is used?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The International Astronomical Union (IAU), refined a Planet and defined Dwarf planet on 24 August 2006. I thought both can get a point for date relevant to article topic. Planet is Core topic and get 3 points while Dwarf planet get 1 point notable, basic subject matter. I thought Definition of planet, also a FA but I didn’t add, can get a point for date relevant and additional point for age. I’m unsure if it can point for notable. Planet seems like the highest point for that date. (Halgin (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC))
I looked in the HTML comments in the pending template and realized I misunderstood; they do both have the points. It didn't make sense to me that Planet was getting the points for the date connection and Dwarf planet wasn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If we were not going to deduct it for Dwarf planet, I don’t think we should for planet. It should be applied or not applied to both. NASA studies planets but Shea was an engineer developing rockets to go to the moon not another planet or dwarf planet. Halgin (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Dud we discuss it for dwarf planet?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, it is now applied to both; I didn't realize that until I looked in the HTML comments in the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep

This has probably been mentioned many times before, but isn't this page turning into Wikipedia's best example of instruction creep? I know there is a great clamour for a fair system for nominating articles for the main page, but it's really getting beyond a joke with the massive length of instructions (along with footnotes) for how to do this. The fact is no matter what system is used, it's not going to satisfy all people all the time, so how about we accept that and try and make it a little less daunting for those that aren't familiar with wikipedia's bureaucracy? - Shudde talk 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Convince all the folks who show up here and Want Their Article On The Main Page No Matter What (even though there are over 950 articles that haven't been on the main page, growing at 2 per day), and I'm with you. It's really beyond silly, but seems to matter a great deal to some. At least you have to give Raul credit for trying to give the community a way to make it work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is beyond silly, and I'm not blaming Raul at all for this, actually he deserves a pat on the back. But if we can all agree that no system is going to be perfect, and no system is going to please everyone, then maybe we can also agree that a bit of instruction pruning is in order. - Shudde talk 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Prune away, I'm game. But anything you try to remove, someone is likely to fight for because it helps Their Article Beat Another Article To The Mainpage :-) Apparently Raul is patient enough to give it a chance; what was missing a few weeks ago was any way to move articles off the page when they didn't have support. Then, people started gaming the 1-point for 12-yos. Then gaming the date connection. It's never ending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably better to say that the instructions for the 12 year olds were (and actually, still are!) imprecise.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Shudde, if you want to make a proposal, please feel free. But acting unilaterally around here is not likely to be productive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody was gaming anything. We just have to be patient and let consensus determine how many points people should get. I don't really think anything needs fixing badly right now. Why we think we can even come close to being so clear on points that there is no ambiguity is beyond me. I think we're all freaking out a little too much and need to calm down a lot before adding new rules. Wrad (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Who's "freaking out"? I see a lot less "freaking out" here than a mere month ago. I see editors beginning to think about cooperating and dealing better with the responsibility Raul gave the community to choose some of the TFAs. Note that there are several articles that could have taken down Yao Ming by now, but no one has done it; indications that editors may be trusting the system now and will wait for the next cycle to nominate their higher-point articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Nominating a Featured Article to the Main Page is not something someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia should be doing, especially regarding bureaucracy, which exists to assess consensus. The growing instructions are an attempt to expedite the process, you start simplifying it, you may end up forcing people to resort back to argumentation for their nominations. Though I am having a hard time figuring out the usefulness of the 12 year old rule... which frankly can almost apply to anything if the 12 year old goes to an excellent well rounded school. - RoyBoy 07:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't agree with the point about instruction creep or that people are making nominations when they are unfamiliar with wikipedia. I came into this for the first time a few days ago when two of the most experienced editors on the Greater Manchester wikiproject - one of them an admin - had given up trying to work out how to make the nomination. I replaced an article which I thought was the next to go as the nominator had claimed no points for it. Sandy had said that it should have one point but I missed that, and there were no points given in the table above. It was soon pointed out that I'd not removed the right article and I then joined in with an ongoing and positive discussion about how the rules could be made clearer. Since then two other of the most experienced editors on the GM wikiproject have said that they didn't understand the rules either and one actually said he would have done exactly what I did. I do wish that this accusation of "gaming the system" would be put behind us. Obviously anyone who makes a nomination doesn't want it to be removed due to lack of points, so they are going to claim any points that they think is due to it and will get annoyed if they think another article is getting preferential treatment. That doesn't mean that they are trying circumvent the rules. The rules for the 12 yo points were ambiguous and obviously we all tend have a bias towards our own country of origin and to think what is taught in our own schools is common knowledge. On this point, I would have to agree with Samuel Johnson who said that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Don't try to deny you're biased - just recognise that you will be and try to overcome it. As an illustration of this, it was said at one point that the NASA nomination was there to "honour their 50 year anniversary", or words to that effect. Well we're not here to to honour anything, the point is to remember and to illustrate the anniversary. As the notibility points still seem to be a bone of contention I think we should remove them from any present nominations and only use them for future nominations when the rule has been finalised, and also remove the votes for the NASA article that don't belong to it as they were made for a previous nomination. Then maybe we can all start to assume good faith and move on. Richerman (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I tend to agree. We need to get back to first principles: 1) This page needs to help Raul. But 2) This page needs to encourage people to nominate appropriate and diverse articles for the Main Page, with a knock-on effect of encouraging people to write them. I think we're hitting 1) nicely, but failing on 2).

However, and it's a big "However", it's a work in progress and at least succeeding on point 1 is better than we've achieved in the past. We need to be vigilant and refine the processes - but that's something that we're doing. It's fairly inevitable that we'd start off with a few rules, find them not working properly and then bung lots of new rules on top. What we need to do, as the page matures, is refine, discard, reword, review on an ongoing basis. It's hard though, to really get stuck into the discarding bit until we're confident we've got all the essentials we need in place yet.

So, in summary, I think we're at a point in time, the page is up and running and far from perfect and we should continue what we're already doing to improve it. --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller. I've been pushing for simple, clear language that make it easier for those who are coming to this page and scratching their heads to understand and be able to quickly figure out if their article stands a chance under this system. By making things simpler, we will encourage people to request diverse articles, rather than having requests from a limited number of people. I don't think it is the number of instructions that is the problem, it is the vagueness of things, which discourages those who come to this page. Wrad is correct, there has been no gaming; simply differences in interpretation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary, we're almost to the 25th, and none of the A thru G proposals above have clear consensus in any direction, so it doesn't appear we'll be implementing any changes before the next cycle. We still haven't solved the "basic subject matter" issue, and the percentage thing is still unclear at best to unfair at worst. What is working a bit better is the advance look at points via the pending template, so hopefully the next cycle will be less of a free-for-all than the most recent was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cutting in here. That's about how I thought it would work. The most valuable thing we've established this cycle is the importance of our template. I don't feel a strong need for changes in other areas quite yet. Wrad (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We'll see if it works. If editors are cooperating, everything from the Warsaw Battle (it gets more points towards the end of its date range) on can get in at a later date, and the next one up should be the Fires. If a later article "beats" the Fires to the page, we're back to grab-as-grab-can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the August 24 anniversary highlights a common sense issue between Planet and Dwarf planet that we should be able to handle. Planet gets four points so would stay on the page, while Dwarf planet gets only two, yet either article makes equal sense for that day. We should be able to put up Planet but use the comments area of the summary chart to offer the option to Raul for common sense cases like this (assuming the planet nominators agree). We shouldn't live and die by the points when common sense says either article represents that anniversary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If we can't change the Notable Topic point, I'm very much considering putting up a formal proposal (so to speak) to abolish it. I know, Sandy, you don't support that, but I'd like to hear what editors have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just add your proposal as another option (new sub-heading) under D. above ?? I would oppose it; I understand the intent of the point, and think it's useful, but that its intent and definition has been stretched, but it would be good to see what everyone thinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm kinda concerned that there will be too many options and too much discussion already, but I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Now what? We have some proposals with mix supports and opposes; a couple with a small amount of supports and not opposes; and two new or alternate proposals. Halgin (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

As with many other wikipedia processes, I fall at the first hurdle in trying to understand this one. I don't consider myself to be a particularly stupid person, so it's possible that others may have the same difficulty that I do.

What is the purpose of this page? Is it simply to make a few suggestions to Raul64 about what he might consider featuring on the main page on a particular day? If that its purpose, then that might explain why the process is not more obvious and transparent, as with DYKs. Does whatever's decided here make any difference to anything? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul has never overturned a decision on this page, for one. I hope that this page will eventually become our main method of deciding all TFAs, but it's still developing as of yet. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for explaining. Makes things a little clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need an FAQ; I've proposed that Karanacs write a Dispatch, where we might be able to summarize the issues and then we could use that link. The gist is that there are over 950 FAs that haven't appeared on the mainpage, growing by about two per day, Raul likes to honor as many community requests as possible, but if left with no guidelines, this page swells to hundreds of requests, which becomes impossible to sort through. Add to that the endless requests he was getting on his talk page before this page was set up. He asked that the community submit five requests at a time, for the next 30 days, and to my knowledge, he has always run those five. He has pretty much left it to the community to sort out how to choose those five. Many new requestors who show up at this page don't have the history or knowledge of the issues, and end up with one complaint or another, so we've continually tried to tweak the system to be more fair and result in more diverse requests. No matter what we tweak, someone remains unhappy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I think that my FAQ would read very differently from your version. :) Wrad (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Are we limited to five in thirty days? There goes my scheme to increase the "throughput" by advocating that eventually we move down to a fifteen day period.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest we're only limited if Raul doesn't change his mind Adacore (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong. This is a cock fight into which five articles at a time are thrown and voted on; any of them when sufficiently damaged during the fight can be replaced by another article with a higher point score. And with luck the five surviving articles might appear on the mainpage during the next 30 days. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

... but the 25 other articles that aren't voted on are chosen by the same person who choses from these five? I think I've decided to laugh. Bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's "with luck"; as far as I know, Raul always runs the community choices. And no, it's not the other 25 slots, because Raul schedules more than once a month, so slots open up more frequently. (I've asked regulars here to track that data, I don't believe they've done it, but now I'm doing it myself.) And, finally, all you have to do is review this page and the archives to see what happens when this is left to the community; I believe it was what you called a cockfight? It seems to generate to petty infighting and a complete inability to decide even basics about how to choose the TFA, with every new editor that shows up on this page Wanting Their Article On the MainPage even if 900 others are waiting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You take too much on yourself I think. You worry about others burning out, but I worry about you burning out. It would be very easy to have a weighted random selection for the mainpage FA, which is what I believed it was until fairly recently. No need for this cock fight over five slots. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that a Biblical quotation there, Malleus?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What's a bible? I'm a confirmed antitheist. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. I've suddenly become concerned that "cock fight" may have a different meaning outside of the UK. This is what I'm talking about; brutal, but not rude. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I used to know, but I forget. I think Sandy exaggerates a bit that every new editor comes running here and that there is a crowd of 950 or so importuning (I like that word) Raul. However, Raul is in charge and so we need to work within the guidelines he lays down. Generally speaking, Raul puts a good mix of articles on the main page. I think people can work responsibly within the rules, but the rules need to be clear. By the way, us Yanks do know what a cockfight is. Nasty, brutish, and hopefully short--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's what happens when Sandy and I talk about the 5 article rule. Wrad (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth having a FAQ note?

Users often come here to ask about 30 day and 5 request limit. So would it be worth leaving a note at the top of this page, explaining them sort of like a FAQ section? Buc (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think such a note would be better at the top of the project page, because that's where they go and unilaterally add a sixth article. Perhaps replace the existing with something like something like "THERE MAY BE AT MOST FIVE REQUESTS ON THIS PAGE; DO NOT ADD A SIXTH. IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING REPLACING AN EXISTING ARTICLE, PLEASE BE SURE YOU READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW, AND CONSIDER READING THE TALK PAGE, LEST YOUR REQUEST BE QUICKLY REVERSED."--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You miss understand. I ment something explaing why there can only be five requests. Buc (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 93

Busy evening! United Airlines Flight 93 nominated for (gasp) September 11 in the pending template. Claiming three points. One for anniversary, two for no similar within six months. I'd be more inclined to downgrade that to 2, because we had D. B. Cooper on May 30, a hijacker and a hijacking surely are in the same category. But notability may give the third point back.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceres

We have in the pending template Ceres (dwarf planet) claiming one anniversary point for the one year anniversary of the launching of a mission to the same; one point for notability. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a problem with the notability point. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got a problem with both, actually. The thing is, I don't think the launching date is significant unless it makes it there, and that won't happen for another seven years. Ceres is the smallest of the dwarf planets. It was the first asteroid discovered, but now it isn't an asteroid anymore. I think zero points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the notability point is fine. Ceres is included in most childrens' solar system books. Sceptre (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dawn (spacecraft) will be the first one to visit a dwarf planet, or a main body in the asteroid belt. Also, since minor planet=asteroid, Ceres is still the first asteroid to be discovered, and as a result, the name 1 Ceres. And yeah, Pluto is an asteroid. Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but Dawn isn't there yet, and Ceres isn't the first stop. I thought Pluto was a dwarf planet, not an asteroid? --Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Ceres has been added for 27 September, however, I was thinking about nominating the Elaine Paige article as that date marks 40 years since her West End debut. As it's 10-year multiples that makes 2 points, plus the 1 point as I, the requestor, haven't had any other article on the main page. Should I replace Ceres on the table? Eagle Owl (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is only a pending template; that doesn't put it on the table on the page. I went ahead and added it for you, plus another point for no recent musical theatre articles. It appears that you can't remove Ceres yet because Wehwalt disagrees with removing articles for which others have more points (even though two editors supported keeping the most likely on the template so it will remain brief and useful, see section below on "Pending template utility" for that discussion). If another MT articles comes up between now and then, that point would be lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see now. Thanks for your help. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That is pretty funny, Sandy, given that I PROPOSED deleting the lower point of two articles for the same date (see below) and you said you "see no reason to remove lesser points on same date, because if another article is scheduled in the interim, the higher-point article could lose points on similarity, resulting in the lower-point article becoming the higher one.." ROFL.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarifying per Wehwalt's request on my talk page. Wehwalt had just reverted my removal of the 0- and 1-pointers from the pending template when I wrote the post above,[5] which is what I was referring to, but if we're wikilawyering the language, Wehwalt seems to concur with removing lower-point articles from the template when there are others with higher points, even as he disagrees with removing zero- and one-pointers that will not likely ever make it to the requests page. As discussed in the section below and per his earlier revert of the template:
  • Wehwalt disagreed with deleting one-point articles from the pending template, while I support removing them, as they clutter the template and there appears to be no chance that a 0- or 1-pointer will make it to the request page, as there are always multiple 3- and 4-pointers.
  • Wehwalt supported removing the lower-point article from the template when there is a higher-point option. I disagree with that because if a subsequent article is scheduled that is similar, points can be deducted from later requested articles, and the higher-point article could become the lower-point article; hence, it doesn't hurt to carry both if one has at least two points, IMO.
The point was that Wehwalt had just reverted removals from the template, so EagleOwl should't remove an article from the template. I'm pretty sure all of this is covered in the section below, so I apologize for redundancy, but am clarifying and apologizing for any misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Wehwalt's position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well . . . it had been 2 1/2 days, but I'll accept that. Grudgingly, mostly due to your use of the term "wikilawyering" above, which rarely serves to calm things down.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some misinterpretation yes, I'm sure unintentional as said on my talk page by Wehwalt. Hopefully I can say that this bit of the dispute has been cleared up. I must say though, I agree with Sandy's two bullet points above; removing 0-1 pointers from the pending template, and I also agree with the "higher-point article could become the lower-point article" scenario. Eagle Owl (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection to the one point removals. I would suggest leaving up Tibet and Warsaw, simply because they predate even the implementation of the rookie nominator rule. As for the high/low for the same day, what if there is a three point differential? Or is that too much instruction creep?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. If there are two articles on the template for the same date, and one has, say, 3 points more than the other, then the one with the lower points should be removed maybe? However, if there is only a 1 point difference, and that 1 point is precarious (as "if a subsequent article is scheduled that is similar, points can be deducted" etc) then it should be kept on the template. Thoughts? Eagle Owl (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, because even a 3-point differential can change via subsequent scheduling: "Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points" (Perhaps what is obscuring the discussion is that the current example on the template is Planet and Dwarf planet, but they won't always be similar articles; even with a 3-point differential, the underdog could become top dog depending on other scheduling.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. It does not seem worth having a rule just for cases like Planet and Dwarf Planet, they should not seriously encumber the template. I suggest that we keep an eye on the template as articles start to "age out" and see how long the template is. Sandy, you've stated that you expect eight 5 and 6 point articles in October, I'm personally aware of a ninth (or it may be one of the eight, no idea). To get what seem like very worthy articles recommended for main page, perhaps we should assess how close we are to consensus on the bonus point for waiting until 15 days before.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As I look forwards and backwards (to what's coming relative to the lack of consensus on the six or seven proposals above), I see that our biggest stumbling block is not going to be the waiting, rather the whole ill-defined territory of how to decide which to remove based on "percentage" votes. Our current "percentage" concept is fairly useless, and puts us right back into that, whoever gets here first gets the slot problem. We have so many high-pointers coming up that we need a way to sort them, independent of points. I suggest we focus on developing a mechanism whereby "votes" are useful in determining who gets "voted off" when there are multiple high pointers, which I can see we are going to have in the future. Our percentage thingie isn't effective as it stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I can probably go one better on this, by giving you a current example, to explain my reasoning. There are currently enough 4- 5- and 6-pointers on the template that we could replace the entire page with them (if we were in that business). But ... does the community want Wacko Jack on the mainpage on his 50th birthday? We won't know that until/unless he goes on the request page and people get to "vote"; it could be touchy. We aren't seeing a wide enough audience on this talk page to know how editors feel about articles in the template. If we defer that "voting" with the "delayed gratification" point, we could be putting off a problem until the last minute, resuling in a scramble to address something that should be decided sooner rather than later. See what I mean? By looking ahead, you can see the shortcomings in our system and proposals. We should be figuring out Michael Jackson now, not at the last minute, by encouraging the delayed gratification point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my proposal does require template inclusion, but there are now too many articles on the template and too few editors to have discussions on each. As for your sorting proposal, I've been thinking along the lines of giving an article one yes vote for each point it has, and if it falls below a certain percentage, it is toast. However, I've been unable to figure out a replacement mechanism for a new, untried article with the same or fewer points.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
So, again, clearing the template of 0 and 1-pointers may help? But I'm having misgivings about the early inclusion on the template idea, because I'm seeing so little input on this talk page. Is it because it's summer, or is it because people just don't show up here until they want their article scheduled? It's bugging me that we have essentially the same four or five people regularly weighing in here; hopefully just a summer break phenom. I'm afraid we'll prejudice worthy articles if their nominators don't know to get on the template in advance. I didn't have that concern until I saw how little feedback this talk page is getting. No answers, no suggestions, just that I'm stumped again. Michael Jackson shows why I'm stumped. We need feedback that we're not getting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It's improving. This talk page used to be totally dead. I'm impressed that we have at least five regulars. I rarely work on articles with that much dedicated discussion going on. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That's encouraging; I've only peeked in on this page when there was ongoing imbroglio, so I wasn't aware it was typically quiet. So, using the Michael Jackson example, how can we improve the page? Michael Jackson could knock most of the current requests off the page right now, and then maybe or maybe not be voted off the island, making it a futile effort (and of dubious outcome if the page doesn't have more "voters"). My original thoughts were that we should be able to sort issues in advance, and that the template would help. I added him to the template, thinking it would generate a lot of discussion, but it hasn't. So ... ??? What next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried for a while to start discussion topics for each new addition, but I was afraid, with so many additions to the template, that it was all just too much. The incomplete discussions on the proposals are now well up the page, and no one has weighed in on them in a while now. I would say the 0 and 1 are pretty much a moot point. We currently have three, two of which are going to "age out" soon, I don't think they will make much of a difference to length. I would not oppose a minimum two-point requirement for the template, stated in the instructions. I would oppose such a limit for the project page. After all, someone might sneak in a one pointer to a last minute vacancy, and folks might just let it ride, knowing it would only occupy its space for a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Works for me; unfortunately for them, the 0- and 1-pointers just may have to wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The best for Ceres is 1 January (especially 1 January 2011)—the date of discovery. Any other date is not relevant. Ruslik (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

With only 2 points, Ceres is currently a non-issue anyway; on 1 January it will have more points, so to that end, the system is working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not remove or archive the stuff with less than 3 points? Or perhaps add a rule to the template or to the page not to list stuff that has below a certain treshold. Nergaal (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's because we don't yet feel confident that none of the 2-pointers would ever make it to the request page ... perhaps with more time, we'd be more comfortable losing the 2-pointers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Yao article seems to be holding on, so a two point can make it. Maybe it is the summer doldrums or relates to these pages getting relatively little traffic, but it's still there and could hold on to when Raul next schedules.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

U2

U2 has been added for September 25. While I have no problem with two of the points, I really don't think it can claim the Notable Topic point. While I have no doubt 12 year olds all over the world know of U2, and deservedly so, they aren't writing school reports on it. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur (with your 2 points, not 3). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay I confess, I was trying to sneak that last point in there! I've changed it to two points based on discussion above. Wikipedia brown (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pending template utility

If the pending template grows too large, it will become less useful. Should we confine it to, for example, 2 points or more, and remove the 1-pointers? Or three points and above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I find "more than two points" a little harsh, especially considering that "two points" often means "two points and a disputed one", which can end up as a three-pointer. I say remove the one-pointers, which stand no chance anyway, and we shall see if any further limitations are needed. Let's go slow...
On another note, I was serious about that documentation page. The more articles are added to the template, the more the text above it grows in length. I'd like to see some restraint there as well. Waltham, The Duke of 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If it becomes a problem, I propose the following:
1. Removing any article which has clearly fewer points than another (either in template or on project page) for the same date, unless contested on talk page.
2. Limiting editors to having two articles placed in the template at any one time, and only one if the editor has a request on the project page.
3. Removing articles from the template ten days in advance of the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice also that the Tibet and Battle of Warsaw articles were removed from the template. I don't think "they aren't going to make it" is a reason for removal. My understanding is that the template was not a waiting room, it is a forum to generate discussion. Someone might choose to put in a one pointer, and other editors might choose to respect that, and I think it would be helpful to have them on the template so that we have some idea what points were claimed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we're hoping that Raul might find the template useful (and I don't know if he will), allowing it to grow to include articles that already have no chance of staying on the page isn't very useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That led to a point I was wondering about. Is one of the purposes of the template to give Raul fodder for articles, in a way additional to the five requests? Because I see one or two editors adding several requests to the template, and I'm wondering if the intent is really to request so many (probably not possible within the rules) or to hope Raul mines the template for articles and good anniversaries.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know; my point is that if the template loses utility by growing to 60 articles, we can be fairly certain that Raul won't even look at it. But it also troubles me that the template is being loaded up by a few editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That is why I suggested item 2 above. The editors in question can't possibly nominate all those articles, as you can only have one on the project page at a time. item 3 would make sure they couldn't game the system by effectively backdooring those articles to Raul (and ten days out, there may not be time for debate as you pointed out when I suggested the plus two for waiting that long to request). And item one gets rid of Everton and dwarf planet, which won't make it simply because they can't overcome the higher point request for the same date!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding:

1. See no reason to remove lesser points on same date, because if another article is scheduled in the interim, the higher-point article could lose points on similarity, resulting in the lower-point article becoming the higher one.
2. See no reason to limit editors using template, since many novices to the page aren't aware of the template or how to use it; it's useful to have page regulars updating the template.
3. See no utility in removing articles from the template ten days before; the point of the template is to see what's ahead. Removing them will not be helpful to page novices.

On the other hand, there is no utility that I can discern from carrying articles with one point on the template, since we've already seen it will always take at least two points to make it to the request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How many is too large? Halgin (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, Sandy is saying that if it grows to 60, we can be certain that Raul won't look at it. But, on the other hand, we have no idea if he does or not. I see no need to take any action at present. Sandy's put forth an idea (removal of articles with points less than two) and I've put forth some, and if it is out of control, we can consider them. Right not, though, we need to give it time. Remember, we've yet to have an article leave through "aging out", that is, Raul scheduling that date. They've mostly left either through withdrawal or moving to project page. Once articles start leaving through "aging out" at a regular pace, I think we'll see how many we have on an ongoing basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Battle of Warsaw (1920) removed for being a one pointer. Why was only this one pointer removed? Halgin (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The one-pointers were discussed again in the Ceres section, Wehwalt withdrew his opposition, and another editor concurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential points and timing for Restoration of the Everglades

I'm too stupid to learn, apparently. Like a fool, I requested To Kill a Mockingbird on the main page and swore I'd never do another main page article voluntarily again. Eh, well...

I'd like to propose Restoration of the Everglades for any day from mid September to late October. Yes, I am hoping for pre-election placement on a weekday. I'd like to make sure that there would be no conflict with placing it on the main page and that I have the points right, which to my count would be Notable topic +1, Underrepresented subject +1, similar article not featured on the main page 3 months +1 = 3 points. Is that accurate so far? Any other considerations? If it looks likely it should be placed, I will be contacting by phone as many experts on the topic as I can find to give suggestions regarding content accuracy. Would like to know if I should go ahead and do that. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . I'd suggest picking a date. Is the reason for the date range you have chosen purely political? Because frankly, you'd do better if your purpose is merely to get it on the main page by waiting for December (anniversary of park dedication; anniversary of park expansion). I'm not sure about the point count either. I guess if you waited three months after Exmoor, you'd be three months clear of national park related articles . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an Everglades National Park article. The issues are related but not identical. Exmoor has not much to do with Everglades, and the article in question is not a national park. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A look-ahead at the points shows that it's probably going to become increasingly harder to get on the page with less than four points (if the page stabilizes and begins to work, more requests will show up), so while three points might do the trick, it's risky, and your best shot is to wait for a date connection. (I know of eight five- and six-pointers for October already, which is why we need a better defined voting/percentage procedure, but any attempts to refine that have been resisted.) You can always try, though; as far as the exact date, you could see what else shows up on the template, so you're not directly competing with another article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, Moni3 (and I agree with Sandy's point, and someone really needs to go through and see which ones are close to consensus) but no two articles are exactly the same, and whether or not they are "similar" is something that gets thrashed out on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this notable topic? You need to do more than say it is a notable topic. Halgin (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also be grateful for an answer to my question as to whether there is any other reason except political for main page placement on a weekday pre election. And, Halgin, I think you have a good point, the article about the Park might be a notable topic, but about its restoration? Iffy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what do I do about Donald Bradman?

Genuinely concerned over this. At some time, I'm gonna plonk Bradman on the project page here, but it'll knock something else off. I've been trying to get my thoughts together about why this bothers me (using up a fair bit of your talkpage in the process, sorry Sandy) and I'm still not clear. What do people think? Should I wait or nominate it now? --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You should at wait least until the TFA is scheduled for August 8. It is should be soon. Maybe you can get slot without knocking something off. Halgin (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific date vs less specific vs no date at all

We get a good number of nominations where specific date is less relevant, tenuous or totally irrelevant. Should we have a way to nominate "un" or "less" specific dates? --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so; there are hundreds of those, and we have to draw the line somewhere. There are many other ways they can gain points (date is only one factor), so unless they are "worthy" of points in some other way, I think we can't hope to sort hundreds of articles waiting to get on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New articles scheduled in the queue.

Raul has added more articles in the queue. The history of Solidarity was been scheduled for July 26, 2008. Does Peterloo Massacre gets –2 points becuase they are "similar"? I think they are. One is a civil disturbance for pro-democracy movement the other is the history of a pro-democracy movements. I don’t see any thing about what happens to points if a new "similar" article is added to the queue. Halgin (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they are similar, the points are lost. The idea is to ensure article diversity. Otherwise we reward for getting in early and being immune from what Raul schedules, which is not the point of things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
As to whether they are similar enough, they are both events of conflict between elements of the people and the government. I think you have a strong point here. I'm a little less clear about the deduction of two points for Battle of Warsaw. I mean, just because both are Polish-related. . . --Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't do that. Sandy did. Halgin (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I know. This seems to be the place to discuss it. It seems to me like, say, docking an article on the War of 1812 because you had an article on the Teamsters.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the connection between Solidarity and Peterloo, but I don't think we'd be running two Polish articles (and by the same editor) in such close proximity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . I'm not sure we should treat having two Polish articles any differently than two British or two American. The fact that they are "by the same editor" just means he doesn't get the point for rookie editor, I don't see how it factors into the point deduction.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If films are the same if they are made in different nations than so are dissident movements. A supporter of Peterloo says "After all, the story of mass mobilisation of working classes' as a consequence of industrialisation and the effects of this in terms of pro-democracy movements is one that has been played out in many different nations and cultures the world over. In this respect I would dare to compare it to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States as a domestic dispute which represented something which had importance and implications the world over. Solidarity is about mass mobilization of worker that produces a democracy and domestic dispute that had importance and implications the world over. Halgin (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Coming into this following a note about what's been going on, to me, it seems rather daft to deny our readers the opportunity to read a great article in the form of Peterloo Massacre, by way of squabbling over points and diminishing its potential outreach because of a "points system" that is still in its infancy. That there is a tiny, tiny connection with another TFA (itself a totally subjective criteria), which will appear three weeks before Peterloo is proposed shouldn't stub out its chances of reaching a wider audience. If the process is designed around the notion of diversity, then the three-week gap and the constrasting periods and territories discussed in the Peterloo article should be more than enough. In short, my 2p (2c!) worth is that the proposal under this section heading this is something which is taking value away from WP, IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
2p is worth more like $1.56, I think. Without getting into the specifics, we have to have some sort of standards to try to decide which articles the community should recommend, and that is why we have talk page discussions. I agree Peterloo has become an important moment in the history of the UK, but we are trying to decide how it fits within the rules we have laid down, which apply to all articles. And no doubt it is a great article, but all FAs should be great articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm no stranger to TFA (having had one in the past), but, with respect, the new points system seems to give way too much exective power to our incumbant FA director, so much so, that the decisions he's made now (with regards to the daily TFA schedule) jarr with the desires of many nominators. That's left respectable users squabbling over points over what could've been great TFAs. I was never much of a TFA nominator myself (I prefer the writing bit), but I've been put off entirely from making a nomination myself in the future. I'm sure you can understand. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to make sure we apply the rules fairly for all articles. Just because Peterloo losses points for a similar article within a month don’t mean it will be replaced. FA director could have put the Solidarity in Aug closer to the date of this article. Halgin (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the Battle of Warsaw (1920) should get -2 points for being similar to the TFA on July 28 about a Navy battle. I don't agree with a loss for being similar to Solidarity because they are Polish-related. Halgin (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we have a decision about the points for Peterloo as there doesn't seem to have been a consensus to remove any so far but it's still ambiguous what the points are in the table. Personally, I don't think there is any real similarity between it and the Solidarity article - different century, different country. Also, the argument about the similarity between Wilberforce and William IV is also without merit as far as I'm concerned, however to say that there's no simliarity between them but there is a similarity between Wilberforce and Peterloo is just ridiculous. I would also say that half the problem with this process is the time the nominations stay on the page without a decision being reached on whether they are used or not. Most of the ones on there now have been on the project page for weeks. If a decision was made on whether or not they were going to be used, they could be moved off leaving room for more nominations to go on without having to remove another article. How about if, once consensus was reached, they were moved into a holding area where Raul could decide whether he was going to use them or not? Richerman (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would kinda violate the five article restriction to have a "holding area" though it is a good idea. In my view, none of the arguments for reduction of points, either for Peterloo or William, are valid, though they were made in good faith. I would suggest that we simply consider William a 4 point article and Peterloo a 3, as there is no consensus to reduce them. If there is a dispute about an article, I think we need to treat it at the highest valuation until there is a consensus to lower the points, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. As of right now, someone looking to replace an article is going to be totally confused.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is clear, but until we get consensus to fix it, it won't be changed, and there is always someone here holding on to a spot and resisting changes to the procedure. The problem is that the community can't "vote" to remove requests because the percentage threshold is so high it is never met. Lowering the threshold (maybe 67% or 70%) will give the community motivation to "vote" to use or not requests on the page. No, we don't need to give Raul more to sort through; we need to make this page work. There are currently three articles listed with dubious point tallies that could be replaced by three pending articles with valid points established (several are higher), but the current percent threshold doesn't allow anyone to do this replacing. The current system motivates requestors to inflate points when posting the request and then not to update them when challenged, as we have no effective means of challenging the points and voting the request off, because the percentage to remove is set too high. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, the fact that the goal of 75 percent has never yet been met (in less than 40 days) doesn't equate with it being too high. Some percentages are made intentionally high, and things just function just fine though the bar stays high. Wait and see what happens if someone inserts Michael Jackson. The fact that points aren't adjusted "when challenged" doesn't mean the requestor is being unreasonable (assume good faith), it can mean that sometimes the challenger is wrong. "holding on to a spot and resisting changes to the procedure" implies a bias on the part of the "someone" you cite, with a strong implication that the two are connected. I prefer to AGF and assume that since articles on the main page come and go, that people are "voting" for the good of WP, rather than their own parochial interests. I don't think people are inflating points, I think they react appropriately when valid arguments are made, and I think if someone came in here with a ridiculous point total for an article, that they would get a negative strong reaction from multiple editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problems are still clear; if someone wanted to put Jackson up right now (which would be an excellent test of the system, to see how "voting" works to reflect community consensus), which of the three requests with questionable points do they replace? We need to empower community voting for this page to be effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more a question of attracting more people to this page. I don't think that they come here, say "Oh jeez, Augustus has only a fifty percent oppose factor, my vote means nothing, I'm outahere." Lowering the percentage achieves nothing. If the problem is articles remaining in place for two long, let's state that my proposal to add a bonus point if you engage on the template and wait until 15 days before proposed date has achieved consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The 75 percent opposition was used to remove the Simpson Movie. I thought we had agreement on Solidarity and Peterloo. The Japanese film Ran prevented Superman (film series) from being on the request page. Puerto Ricans in World War II was call similar to Battle of Warsaw (1920) even thought they are different times and nations. One is a battle and the other is people in different war. Palpatine has been claimed to be similar to all movie related articles. We need to apply the rules fairly across different articles. Halgin (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that because most editors who frequent this page are here to defend an article staying on the page, disputed points will always be attached, the system will always be gamed, the editor who gets here first and adds disputed points will keep a slot, and the only way we can empower the community to remove disputed articles is to lower the current 75% oppose, perhaps to 67%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, with the greatest respect, that IS a rather sweeping generalization about the motives of others.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Even with my past posts to the talk page of FAC, the page hasn't drawn a broader audience in the entire month I've been following. It seems as if people aren't interested in coming to the page unless they want a slot. Who else has shown up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Still, Sandy, remember all those AGF discussions? Now would be a good time to stop putting words in editors' mouths that their fingers didn't type. You have vastly more WP experience than I do, I thought we were to concentrate on the merits of the edits, not the editors. Leaving that aside, though, I don't see how discounting the removal percentage is going to attract people to this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Next off ?

There are several pending requests with 4 points or more, and three requests currently on the page with questionable points and support (William IV of the United Kingdom, Peterloo Massacre and Augustus). Which is next to be replaced? I'm indifferent between the three, but this situation provides a working example of what needs to be resolved on this page. We have 4- and 5-pointers that could be used, but it's unclear which gets replaced next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Augustus. It is the three pointer with the lowest percentage. Those who seek to lower the points on William and Peterloo haven't achieved consensus (or even, I think, majority support), so I propose to treat them at their stated values.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's clear (I'm not saying it's not true, just highlighting a problem as to how we resolve issues on the page) ... because this page is getting little traffic, we haven't seen re-evaluation of "votes" based on subsequent scheduling, so we don't know (for example) if the 1 point on Peterloo Massacere is any more or less valid than the 3 points on Augustus. I 'spose we could test the sytem by just replacing one of them with the planet 4-pointer (or the Jackson 5-pointer if someone really wants to test the system), but since I've been very involved in these discussions, I don't want to be accused of pointy-ness, nor do I want to do the choosing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (By the way, if I were to express a personal preference, it troubles me that a 20-yr anniversary of a very notable fire -- the kind of article we rarely see on the mainpage -- is being overwhelmed by a preponderance of articles that are more ... "common" to the mainpage ... can't find the right word for what I'm after there, but they aren't as "different" as a historic fire.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict. These pages are long . . . but as far as I can see, only one person each favor lowering the points on Peterloo, and on William, and multiple editors have stated they don't favor it. I don't want to be pointy either, but at some point, the clock runs out. Admittedly, we lack an evaluation system for challenges, but at best, each is a minority view right now. As for the fires, look, we'll be losing multiple articles off the list in a week, someone can try inserting the fires then. If they want.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
But the fire anniversary (August 20) is missed, while we have a proliferation of old dead guys kings royalty battles British hurricanes and planets. All too much of the same "overrepresented" articles on Wiki. Since one of our goals is to encourage mainpage diversity, there's a weakness in our points if the fire can't get on the page. We haven't had an article like that, and it's the only different thing on the list, yet we're missing a 20th anniversary for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, these are recommendations. By my estimate, eight a month. Raul can fill the other 23 (or all 31) with what he wants. And these are the recommendation of THE COMMUNITY. If the community wants to recommend eight video games a month, or eight Simpsons episodes, well, that's the community for you. In my opinion, "cumulative wisdom" is often asymptotic to zero. Rant off my chest, you have to let the community make its own mistakes--if such they are. And as for the fires, while the anniversary of "Black Saturday" would be nice to have, there are, as I recall from discussion, other dates of significance. It could be put in any time until early September. Back to main point--it is the community's choice which five at a time to recommend, and I think it is great that you're advocating for which ones you think should be there. But speaking as a lawyer, I well know, sometimes advocacy is in vain.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Curious how you come up with eight a month? By my notes (which could be wrong), in the month between July 16 and Aug 15, we get only four scheduled from the request page (Quatermass July 18, Minneapolis July 20, NASA July 29, and Ming August 8), and that is directly our fault, not Raul's. Way back in mid-July, the requests page filled up with requests that were four and five weeks out, occupying the slots and keeping any other requests off the page even though most of them had disputed points, meaning the page isn't currently functioning to give requests to Raul, because articles that get here first and hang on are still keeping other articles off. We still don't have an effective mechanism here. The community is not recommending because voting isn't working; the article that gets here first gets to keep everyone else off the requests page. Maybe things will change when summer breaks are over and we'll see more input ("voting") that will allow the community to make better use of the page ... not sure ... but I still think the voting threshold is set so high that it discourages community input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Startups are slow. With four articles in a week coming up, I think that eight is realistic for a monthly figure. Look, we have to do something or someone is going to remove an article in good faith but be reverted. I think we have to recognize that the challenges to the points in the disputed articles have not succeeded, and go forward on that basis. Otherwise, put the challenges in footnotes or a similar mechanism. We may be headed for a train wreck here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We may. My point in raising the issues has little to do with any particular request (I don't care that much about any of them), but to get editors to recognize that it is directly our fault, not Raul's, that only four articles were scheduled from the requests page in the month that I've been tracking (since July 16). Raul is following our requests, and if we don't fix it, I hope we don't later see editors coming in to blame Raul (which is what was happening when I started following this page). Raul has left it to the community, and the community hasn't fixed it. He's putting up what we give him, and we haven't done better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I know. But it is a systemic problem. Right now we need to put on a band-aid, and the only logical thing I see to do is to give these articles their full point value. Can we agree on that, without prejudice to the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that any particular point assignment right now is less problematic than the lack of a "voting" motivation, to encourage community input. We do need to find a way to label (in the chart) right now who is next off, and I don't want to opine on that issue because of past notions that I'm unduly influencing the page :-) But ... If it's almost impossible to vote an article off, why would anyone vote? I suspect that lowering our vote threshold might invigorate the page, making it more useful, allowing more articles on the page. Not lowering it too far, as that will lead to a different problem (vote stacking), but it's too high now, just a slight adjustment as a trial. (Always glad to grandfather so there won't be concerns about changing the rules in the middle of the game, the concern is to fix it long-term, not about any current articles.) Should we archive off to 10., all of the old proposals that gained no consensus, for a fresh start and less confusion to new readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's archive off the ones that gained no consensus, keeping the ones where there were no oppose votes. But I think we need hard numbers in that box or confusion and train wrecks will result. I think we view the two efforts to lower votes as either not successful, or we remove the lower point value from the box without prejudice to any later-reached consensus to lower them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching the chart or opining on any article's current numbers: don't want to be accused of anything. I won't object if someone else is bold. A partial archive would be confusing, because too many of the proposal discussions referred to other parts of the proposal. I think if we archive any part of it, we need to start over, or else keep all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Or, should we archive through 12, Bradman? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm compelled to agree. It's a mess. Let's start over, using the ones that got significant support as guidance. I've made the adjustments to the table.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll archive then as soon as another editor concurs (or no one objects). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Table looks good. So, next, do we want to put the 5-point Jackson in for Augustus as a trial of the community vote? Or do we put in the "safer" 4-point Planet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Or do we put them both in, replacing Peterloo, knowing that Peterloo can come back if Jackson is voted off the island? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should test the system. I think we wait and see if anyone is sufficiently motivated to request them, and in Jackson's case, possibly have their head bitten off. I think we sit back and wait and see what happens. I hate to see valid articles lose their place for a "test".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If we replace Aug 16 and Aug 19 with Aug 24 Planet and Aug 29, the COMMUNITY will not get many on the page. Jackson get –2 points because of there was a musical group on July 31, so that so now it is a 3 pointer. Halgin (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that solves the Jackson issue (somebody update the chart !) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
To follow up on Halgin's point, I think we are here to let the community make its choices and avoid being heavy handed in the process. Fires, or Jackson, or whatever, may well be worthy choices, but unless one of us chooses to request one of them, we should stay out of the way of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Point clarification

Do the points for anniversaries extend past multiples? For example, if I were to nominate Myst for September 25, would it get one point for date connection (initial release) or two points for anniversary (15 years since its release)? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One. You need a round number for more than that. Multiples of ten, fifties, or a hundred.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Myst would only get the one point, with a possible second point for rookie editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs a rookie editor? Tehehehehe ... sorry, David, but I'm cracking up here :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Whew. Glad that put you in a good mood, so now you won't go after Bradman for tying up a slot for three weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's not forget, the only reason the community got to put up Yao Ming is because Bradman unselfishly held off for two weeks, when the cricket man coulda bumped the basketball man long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, Yao plays the bodyline and would have sent Bradman for a duck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No comeback, I'm cricket-ignorant :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So am I, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
veering this thread back on course :P... so, is that "points consulted a month before" going into effect? 'Cause then i could have a three-pointer! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we sorta gave up on all those proposals, and are hoping for a wider audience and a new set of proposals after summer breaks are over. None of them generated much consensus. On a practical note, two or three points wouldn't likely get you on the page anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Dammit then, I'll wait 'till its flipping 20th anniversary, gather up my six points and have at you then! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Two. If you waited for its 100th anniversary, you'd have six. And I'll prestate my support for then!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, six or whatnot if you count how old an FA it'll be and that it'll prolly still be the only TFA i put up... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoa ... are you saying (rookie editor?) that with all your FAs, you've never had a TFA ??? Have none of your FAs ever appeared? Check the list at WP:WBFAN for starters ... maybe you are a rookie after all ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicxulub crater appeared as TFA on January 8 of this year. Damn, damn, damn. Sandy, I was going to come back at you with "He who laughs last, laughs best." Now I can't. darn. :P --Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to best the Holiday Inn Express ... can't top that one ... shoulda had a V-8? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? How did I miss Chicxulub getting on the main page? That would explain the really random amount of vandalism it got, but still... my head musta' been elsewhere. So much for rookie me :( On the plus side, Sandy, I'm whipping up an FA candidate that isn't a video game, so be ready for the freezing over of hell in the next few weeks. Thanks for the clarifications, all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Age since promotion

There's a problem in the instructions wording:

Age (since promotion to featured article) ...

That wording could be used to give points to an article that has already run on the main page (say promoted in 2005 and run on the mainpage in 2006), when the intent was to give points to articles that have been waiting the longest to appear on the main page. Because it doesn't exclude articles that have already run on the mainpage, there's a large loophole in the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It might just be then that we don't have a deduction for being on the main page. Perhaps -2 points for articles which have been Featured on the main page in the past two years? CB (ö) 06:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that any articles that have already featured on the main page would be automatically disqualified from running a second time, while there are many articles that have not yet featured once. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've spotted a couple of ambiguities on the instructions. For example, the instructions do not clearly state that for a replacement to take place, the new article must have more points than the old article. Perhaps this weekend, I'll work on a revised set of instructions and see if there's agreement. No changes, simply cleaning up the language. And yes, no double bites at the apple.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Whilst Raul could IAR for some exceptional circumstance or other, this page shouldn't be considering 2nd runs; not while there's such a large backlog of articles that have never appeared. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't quote me, but I think that although Raul has never run a TFA twice, he has not said he would never do that. It remains a very unlikely possibility, but yes, we need to fix the loophole(s). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Ambiguity in project page instructions

To straighten out ambiguous language, I propose we change the project page instructions as possibles (deletions struck out, additions in bold). I do not think this is controversial, and I propose we implement as soon as people have time to comment.

At top of page: (first three paragraphs to remain the same):

If 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. In the case of multiple requests or tied points, reviewers will debate to achieve consensus on which article should be replaced. according to the instructions below.

Adding Requests:

Please nominate only one article at a time. The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured articles is here. If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than than one of the articles already requested you may remove a request (explaining in your post the claimed point total) and add yours according to the following: ( remainder of section to remain the same.

--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it will include all the links, on quick glance, looks fine. Except we do need to remind requestors to explain their points, so I'm not sure why you struck that part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
points in edit summary? ugh ... page gets a lot of traffic, hard to find. Points should be part of post, as originally stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Modified. Also added the no double jeopardy rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. But :-) Are we sure we want to exclude previous TFAs from the page, or do we want to dock points from them? They remain a remote possibility. I thought we would just clarify that the point additions for time since featured only apply to articles which haven't run before. Again, concerned that Raul has not said he would never re-run a TFA, just that he never has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Exclude them. If Raul wants to exercise his discretion (which I think could happen if a major major event, a big disaster or assassination happened) that is his business. With 950 articles waiting their turn, I don't see any reason for "seconds".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is hard to imagine why an article would be featured twice on the Main Page, even if it was de- and re-featured in the meantime. I should be more comfortable if the Director could comment on whether he has any reason to keep double TFA-ing an open possibility for articles, but I believe some practices are so well established that they are unlikely to change. (Remember that most of the British constitution is unwritten.) And, as Wehwalt says, even if it happens, this is purely the Director's prerogative. We have no business implicitly encouraging people to bring articles for second helpings of the Main-Page publicity pie.
Personally, I believe that it would unacceptable for Wikipedia to display an article twice on the Main Page as a response to an event, no matter how momentous; as an encyclopaedia, we should be neutral and not show signs of evaluating events as more important than others. (Not to mention the recentism something like that would imply; hardly an encyclopaedic thing to do.)
That said, if we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of witnessing the beginning of World War III, we could, perhaps, bend the rules a little and feature Evolution for a second time. Fitting last TFA, don't you think? Waltham, The Duke of 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, somebody better bring the "amoeba" article up to speed, and we'll honor our successor as the dominant form of life on Earth. Anyway, I've implemented the changes, making a slight grammatical change (inserted word "if" so as to read "and if the article you propose . . . "--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With over 960 articles waiting their turn and growing, I don’t see any reason that the community should request re-run TFA. If that backlog go down then the community can reevaluate the rule. A nominator that replaces an article should explain the claimed point total. (Halgin (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)).
Well, with the present arrangements, there is only one way to get that backlog down... I'll leave you do the honours. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 18:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Plea for help

I'm a total novice when it comes to nominating something for the front page and I have two questions:

1. How can I request a specific date quite a long way in advance...December 22 to be precise? 2. How many points would I get for Sunderland Echo? I have never nominated a front page article before and, if Dec 22 is agreed, it would be the 135th anniversary of the paper. The only other FA newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, was on the front page in March, so there would be nine months between them.-- Seahamlass 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome! You can't request that far in advance. I would think you would have four points, one for anniversary, two for no similar within six months, one for rookie editor. I suggest that after October 22, you come back and add the article to the template above. Then, when it falls within the thirty day timespan (details in the instructions), see if it is possible to add the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for the info...just what I needed!-- Seahamlass 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

We have some inconsistency in the summary chart application.

1. In earlier discussions, it was decided that regulars updating the page would use the notes to indicate the next removed, making it easier for newcomers to the page to understand how to replace an article. Today, an editor with his own request on the page, who earlier added "next to be removed" to another article similar to his request, [6] deleted the same wording from his own request. [7]

2. Earlier use of the chart included noting oppose percentages, but the same editor noting earlier (lower) oppose percentages on other articles [8] [9] has now removed an oppose percentage on his own request.[10]

If the page is to useful to requestors, the community and Raul, consistency should be a goal. Earlier consensus was to flag "next to be removed" for newcomers to the page, and editors changing applications to defend their own requests on the page don't bode well for whether the community is ready to assume responsibility for mainpage scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, as August 21 has been scheduled (and I notice that both of the articles Raul did not schedule had significant oppose percentages), it strikes me as a moot point. However, since at the time, there were fewer than five requests on the page, there was no purpose in having "next to be removed" next to any article. If the template had been filled, that would have been a different story. Frankly, I'm more concerned about your unilaterally and without discussion (or even a descriptive edit summary) reducing the number of points on the William article (and not on the Augustus article; Aug 19 had not yet been scheduled)[11] which rather confuses me because you said the Augustus article was too much royalty[12] which is also what you said when I nominated William[13]. The Battenberg article, by your own logic, would affect both articles identically, and I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you chose to give William your special attention in that manner. Presumably both articles should have suffered a point reduction by your stated position, and it would have been logical to do Augustus first, as first in date order. In the event, you chose not to do Augustus at all. I should also note that you previously put up William's oppose percentage gratuitiously.[14] when it certainly wasn't the next to be removed, so I'm unclear if your actual practices are consistent with what you are calling upon us to observe.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do away with the new system?

Okay, this page has confused me, a first for a Wikipedia process, I must say. This page is quite unlike any of the other processes on Wikipedia—nowhere else do you find a point system, kicking off older entries in favor of new ones, and all of this. I think that the strict limit of 5 entries on this page hampers its ability to do its job effectively. For example, last night I attempted to nominate an article for September 1, and got reverted because I didn't demonstrate that I had more points than the page I removed, or something like that. Which, really, I didn't want to remove the old page, but I had to, and I'm not sure why. The page I removed wasn't for September 1. Again, I point at all the other processes on Wikipedia, where you basically just throw up a heading and underneath that, there's a consensus-determining discussion. Quite simple and it seems to do the trick everywhere else, why does this need a more bureaucratic process?

I understand there are some vital things you guys need to pick up on like anniversaries, time since last similar article and all that, but it's unwiki for it to be all boiled down arbitrarily to some number which determines whether a request lives or dies. Reducing stuff to a number takes the human element out of a discussion and that's not the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Also, for someone unfamiliar with the points system (me) it really seems quite boggling and difficult to understand. The "time since last similar page" criteria seems especially tedious, requiring research through the TFA archives for similar pages. If I'm going to have to do research, I'd prefer it go toward improving the mainspace directly.

I would advocate replacing the system with something similar to WP:FAC or even one of the many deletion processes (hey, WP:MFD seems to still be chugging along with more than 5 entries on there, they must have done something right) or even the old system that was in place here—I was only an occasional user of it so I'm not sure how well it worked for the maintainers, but using it was pretty simple and I managed to use it successfully. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the current system seems to cause ill feeling and confusion, I'd be happy to see a new system. I have no idea what it would be though. Feel free to make a proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO it's not this process per se that's causing the (undoubted) ill-feeling and confusion; that's being caused by its underlying rationale. However, looking just at this process it seems clear that the combination of voting and a points system leads to a great deal of confusion. Why not lighten the ceremony and just develop a points system applied to as many candidates are put forwards for the currently open slot. Limiting the candidates to five because that's all that Raul will accept is putting the cart before the horse. Just pick the five top-scoring candidates at the end of the cycle, and forget all the largely irrelevant argey-bargey of voting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Killing the 5 article rule and letting consensus decide is what I've always wanted here. Wrad (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The 5 article rule is problematic, I agree. My preference though would be to elaborate on the points system so that editor's wouldn't have to waste their time arguing about what is, after all, pretty small beer. As many nominations as you like, top five point-scrorers at the end of the cycle are proposed to Raul. Job done with minimal fuss or drama. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be a step in the right direction. Wrad (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care how you filter or otherwise pick which ones I see - as long as when I sit down to schedule requests, I only have to deal with at most 5 of them.
A secondary concern is that Sandy is now spending ever-more time maintaining this page, which is something I'd like to see remedied. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of her time is spent dealing with headaches over what to take out. This might help. Wrad (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<-(5x edit conflict) Right, I think the 5 article rule is one of the biggest problems of the current setup. As I noted above, I had to replace an article nominated for a day in August with my nomination for September 1. I was reverted because my nomination had fewer points than the one it replaced. That means that my nomination was in 'competition' with the one from August, which it shouldn't be, because I didn't want the spot that the other article had.

As for a proposal, I think a viable option would be to do something similar to WP:IFD and have a subpage for each day. Put the nominations up on the daily subpage (if you want August 22 you put your nomination on the August 22 subpage), each nomination under their own header, then everyone !votes support/oppose on them. Do away with the points—while those things are good to consider, they should be considered by the people commenting on them and used to back up their position, same way that people on the deletion processes use various policies to back up their positions. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Scott - see my above comment, re: "as long as I don't have to deal with more than 5 at a time". Your proposal violates this condition. Therefore, it is not acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This process is already too time-consuming as it is, as Raul said above. Let's just work out a proper points system and make it almost automatic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wrote my proposal before I learned of Raul's desire to deal with only 5 of them at a time (edit conflicts). I'm sure we could find some way of staggering the outcomes so that the scheduling works easier for him...possibly have all discussions end 1 week before the proposed day or something so at most he'd only have one article to add to the schedule each day.
That said, I think that it should only be automatic nominate-and-forget when your nomination is unopposed. I think that whenever two or more articles are competing for the same slot there should actual consensus-attaining discussion like elsewhere.
I'll post to VP to try and attract some more people with some ideas for designing a process that works well for all involved. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You've kind of reinforced what I was saying about misunderstanding the underlying rationale. Raul wants to be given a batch of (no more than) five FAs to be considered when he sits down to schedule the main page for the upcoming month. He doesn't want to be given an article for each day. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood the rationale myself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What if we were to vote on one FA a week, with the fifth in a month reserved for some sort of wild card? Scrap the whole point system and leave it up to editors. Or if the wild card idea is no good, just vote on one every six days. In case of a tie, we go with the oldest FA. That removes a lot of the contention, and frees up time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Raul doesn't necessarily schedule every week, and that he's asked for a bunch of (no more than) five at a time. Scrap the voting and and go with a developed points system is my suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, but we have no good way of dealing with disputes. Which is why I would scrap the notable topic point as too subjective, and refine the "similar article" to, say, categories, with the periods reduced to account for the smaller number of categories. If we can eliminate the subjectivity, then we can make our lives a lot easier.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite. It really doesn't have to be the morass of confusion that it presently is. A simple, straightforward points system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at what I've proposed below. We might want to adjust the point system from time to time (as in Sandy's "Once in a blue moon" proposal for rare events), but it would take most of the heartburn out of things.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A good start. But on the subject of "once in a blue moon", Raul can handle those events himself. This process is simply making five suggestions for the next scheduling cycle, any of which may or may not appear on the main page on the suggested day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, leave that aside there. I'm afraid that if we fiddle with the point system as preparation to adopting something like I've proposed below, we'll never get to stage 2, judging by how tied up we got when we had some proposals last month. If we go with something like below, we are making efficient use of what we are allowed to do, and Raul is free to troll through the other articles on the page which have not made the top five.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have the distinct impression that we're struggling to agree that we agree. All that needs to be done so far as I can see is to agree on the points system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with the point system we have now, as modified below. We can refine later. If you have an alternative, I'd probably agree with that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you and I could quickly come up with a points system that we could both agree on, to be fine-tuned as necessary, and agree that was the right way to introduce some sanity to this process. But probably we need to hear from a few others before we declare victory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason we're not able to do away with voting or any community consensus mechanism is that just about every point assignment mechanism that has been put in place has been gamed, so points are often challenged: hence, the need for community input. Alternatives are to either eliminate any option for any discretionary decisions by the community (items like notability) with wrote mechanisms and strict definitions for point tallies, or continue to allow the community some means of input and correction when points are gamed. As long as the system allows for points to be gamed, it will also need to include a mechanism for community input, and hoping that we can just put up the articles based on maximum points will remain an optimistic but not usually achievable goal. Also, the five-article rule is not the core problem here; what has been pretty clear is that, whether five or fifty, the issues will be the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so my proposal below has a dispute resolution mechanism, if there is a dispute, there's an up or down vote on the dispute. That seems to resolve your concern, Sandy. And it frees up your time, which was Raul's concern above, that you had to devote too much time to keep this page running.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes ... I think it will mostly work, or at least is worth a try. I'm disappointed that it takes some "voice" away from the community, by making tallies cut and dried. There was a time I hoped that community consensus would be more important than mechanistic point tallies, but it's time to try something else; we're just not getting enough community input here, and anything that isn't cut and dried has always led to issues. As to my time, I wanted to closely follow this page long enough to figure out what was happening here, and that took several cycles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_5&oldid=1137401039"