Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Confuzzled

I used to be a bit more active around here, but got bored of the constant warring over the points system and the process on the whole and went to do something more productive, like writing more FAs. :-) I've had one TFA (not requested... Raul just randomly popped by my talk page saying he'd put it up and asking for chocolate), and haven't made a request here before.

I'd like to request Internationalist for 7 September, the 10 anniversary of its release. By my count that would give it two points. All the current candidates have at least three points, so my basic question is if it's worth my while to hang around this page trying to secure a slot, only to have it (probably?) overriden by something with more points anyway? —Giggy 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You do want to have your page on the main page, so yes. Or you could just ask Raul654, but it is poor etiquette not to use that as a last resort. –thedemonhog talk • edits 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a try. What do you have to lose? We should have several vacancies occurring in the next ten days, perhaps just slip it in. Sometimes it gets respected.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, do performers and musical works fall in the same category?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "musical works" you mean albums and songs, yes; they all fall under "Music" at WP:FA. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough there was a slot open... [1] - thanks for the comments guys. —Giggy 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the hurricanes

I know we have LOTS of hurricane featured articles, but do we really need to put all of them on the home page? There are so many interesting featured articles in subjects that we haven't beaten to death, that I don't see why we have to have a hurricane on the home page every month. Kaldari (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the WikiProject Tropical cyclones has so many high-quality FAs. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. Without mincing my words, I'd suggest that it's relatively easy to pump out formulaic articles of whatever colour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about adding a -x pts for having an 2 or 3 similar articles in the past 3 months? Nergaal (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Complaints from users about topics that users perceive have repetitively appeared on Main Page are common on Talk:Main Page. Both Raul's own efforts and our scoring system prevent these from being more than perceptions. Both Raul and our scoring favour articles from topics under-represented at Main Page, and both penalise ones that have recency in appearing there. I've seen this charge thrown, without real truth, at articles about British royalty, cricket, football, "science" (science!), popular music, roads and now hurricanes. And anyone considering that it's easy to get any kind of article to FA is welcome to add to the numbers patrolling WP:FAC, giving article nominators an appropriately hard time. As well as being a typically pernickety FAC reviewer, I've been to FAC as a nominator on more than a couple of occasions, and it's not like shooting fish in a barrel. (in case you didn't notice, there are five "show"s to click in that link; it's 71K in size.) --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've been through two FACs and am gearing up for a third (not quite ready yet but it is Jena Six, my second law article), and both have been difficult, though ultimately successful. If the hurricane people have it down to a science, well, more power to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NB There's a current candidate article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Barry (2001). Go review it! --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's six, actually... but yeah, go review it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to contributor history point

The current rule states: Requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor of the article. 1 point. It has been stated in a comment on a request that an article should get this point even if someone else requests it. So do we want to change the rule to allow this? Halgin (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How would the point be determined? The person who put it in the template?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN, easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if the guy is a FA nominator of the article per WP:WBFAN, and hasn't made the front page with an article he nominated for FA, the article gets the point, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that was the idea; was I wrong? But it's a bit more than that, and that's why we linked the article stats for significant contributors. On older (or even some newer FAs), sometimes a recent contributor will have higher contributions to the article than the original nominator, so it's not only WBFAN, it's also the article stats (already linked). Who requests it really is irrelevant, at least that's what I thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand. As with William, I wasn't involved with his FAC, which happened back in '04, but I have been involved seriously over the last two years in bringing the article up to today's standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, we have to allow for both (WBFAN or articlestats). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN isn't perfect - it has me (User:Tivedshambo) down for two FA's whereas in fact I only have one. The second, LSWR N15 class, was a procedural nomination only, at Sandy's request, as the original nominator had been off wiki for some time due to exams. In practice I had very little to do with the article, and cannot claim any credit for it. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could adjust for any exceptional case like that when it comes up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly (and that's why we need "voting" and consensus, along with points, not every situation is black and white, consider a recent nomination that had nine nominators listed, even though several of them hadn't edited for months and had minimal article contributions). Also, Tivedshambo, in that case, since the nominator was MIA, I would have closed the nom if you hadn't agreed to take it on, so it might not have been featured without you. If you want your name removed, you can just edit it out at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Hi everyone, I've written a dispatch on the TFA/R process to run next week. It's located at Wikipedia:FCDW/August_18,_2008. I wasn't able to follow the discussion closely in the last month, so I'd appreciate the regulars looking this over and making sure I haven't missed anything. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think linking on the page would help newcomers get a better feeling of how things work with TFA requests. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

After it's finalized and published, we can link it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Next to be replaced

We had old consensus here to include Next to be replaced on the summary chart, as an aid to newcomers; recently, that was challenged. Now I'm confused. A requestor wants to add an article with ~5 points, and I told him that Jackson was the next to be replaced, because it has Opposes. But, Internationalist (album) has neither supports nor opposes, so how do we weigh Jackson against the album? Which is next to go? I still believe we should develop consensus here on talk and post the Next to the summary chart, because newcomers often don't know what to do. Based on the conversation on my talk page, Mongo is very confused about how to get his nomination on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Easily resolved, Sandy. The nominator counts as a support, thus Michael Jackson has a lower support percentage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

D'oh <smack>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose as follows, and ask for support:

1. The notable topic point is eliminated.

2. The one month and two week deduction of points for similarity are changed to two weeks and one week, and similarity shall mean belonging to the same FA category.

3. The top five articles in terms of points, at any given time, shall constitute our recommendations to Raul, with tiebreaker being broken by seniority as an FA.

4. Any disputes shall be voted upon for a period of four days, unless due to urgency a shorter period is necessary. A tie shall defeat whatever is being asked for.

5. An article can be removed by two thirds vote, with at least seven editors voting.

And I indicate my SUPPORT

--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd want to see a more developed points system than that. A weighting for age of the FA for instance. One point for less 6 months, 2 points for 6-12 months and so on. I'd also want to keep the tyro point. I think a proper points system needs a little more thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, I'd also like to see the points allocated automatically, as a result of nominators answering a few questions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant keep the existing points system except as noted above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't disagree with eliminating "notable", as it is a frequent source of contention and there was no consensus on a method to nail down the definition. But it might be worth discussing whether to keep the "core" and "vital" points. Notable and diversity were important goals of this page, but we may have to leave that to Raul, so points can be by tighter definitions.

2. Agree with belonging to same FA category (again, disagree in principle, but this is another issue of frequent discussion, so best to make it something concrete rather than leave it to community consensus), but disagree with lower time frames.

3. Agree with the tie-breaking mechanism, have doubts that the community will be able to consistently determine points without gaming and disagreement, but worth a try.

4. Don't disagree in principle, but four days is a bit long, perhaps three.

5. Like it, seems more in line with reasonable numbers we've seen on this page over the last month.

All else remains the same, this could solve the disputes that occur over points, but it leaves the community with less of a "voice" in determining consensus, by making points cut and dried; since I reluctantly concur that appears to be the only way to resolve the recurring issues and gaming of points that occur, I think it's a good proposal overall. I think it can be enacted as soon as there's a reasonable consensus. In summary, the only things I disagree with are the lower time frames on similar articles run, and I suggest three days discussion rather than four. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I'll agree with all your changes, but please consider that due to the limited number of FA categories, almost every article will suffer a point deduction. Suggest we leave the core and vital for another day. It seems to be a rare occurrence, only come up once since I've frequented this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Restating. I agree with your modifications. However, I'm a bit concerned since almost every nominee will suffer a deduction, since there are a limited number of FA categories. I'm suggesting we defer discussion of the Core and Vital for another day, since it's unusual for one to be nominated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, still not following. Are you saying that the new definition of similar will mean many articles will now lose points on similar, and that is why you proposed lowering the time frames, to make up the difference? So we might be going in circles? ANd by deferring discussion of core and vital, are you saying to leave them up or drop them now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy: 1. Yes. 2. Leave them up and discuss them later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Then I'm unclear how it's going to work; I foresee problems with category used to define similar, when they're not. Lowering the date range compounds it by adding two problems. Willing to see it in action, but suspect it's going to be a mess. We can't call everything, for example, in Media or Music similar, and then solve the problem by lowering the date range. Will lead to more protracted "fights". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If this proposal is implemented, what I suggest (others may have better ideas than me) are to list the top five articles, complete with blurb workup. They would also appear in the "points box". A list of other articles could appear at the bottom of the page, without blurb, just article name, proposed date, number of points, and promotion date (an article demoted and repromoted would have its most recent promotion date). Most discussion would take place here on talk page, reducing clutter. We could list either in order of points, or in date order, either I think would work fine. This would provide a clear and transparent process, easy for users to understand, and with little room for debate. That reduces Sandy's fear of gaming, and the concerns of users who have come to this page and said this is an incomprehensible, insider process.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not list all of the nominations, why just the top five again? That list of five is the source of much confusion IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We would list all of them; but only the top five would be our recommendations to Raul and be given blurbs. The others would just have the basic info. We thereby keep within the letter of the "five at a time" rule. Of course, Raul could choose to look at the others . . . This has a lot of pluses. We could automatically (so to speak) transfer from the template to the project page once we're within the thirty days, giving whoever put it in the template credit (if appropriate) for the rookie editor point. It makes things a lot more painless. As a practical matter, then, all an editor has to do is list the article, point calculation, and date of promotion (for convenience) in the template, and the process would work without the editor needing to do much else. Win win.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal negatively impacts any of the nominated articles, so whenever there is consensus (perhaps we would do well to hear from a couple more regular editors), if achieved, we implement immediately.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we had a page like that once before and eliminated it as unworkable: [2] [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're continuing the two point minimum, which should cut down on clutter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we declare consensus if there's no opposition say in two days. I'm not an expert on the def of consensus, if I'm out of line, don't take it wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with the 5-article rule

The 5 article limit seems to me to be the root cause of a lot of the problem here; the point system makes authors of poor-scoring articles (such as mine) feel as if our articles are completely unwelcome on the main page. (This was in stark contrast to when I nominated another one of my articles for the main page, Kansas Turnpike; there was a discussion, everyone generally agreed it was a good idea, and then when the day came it was on the main page.) Now we have all the articles having to compete against each other for one of those five slots, so my article will probably be left out because of its low point score. I could accept my article being beaten out by an article also nominated for September 1 which has higher points than mine. That's the way life goes. But in the current (and proposed) system, none of the other articles competing for the five slots would likely be nominated for September 1. So the slot I wanted to put my article in would still be open yet I would be denied use of it, being blocked out by some other article which had higher points but was nominated for some other day. This is the problem I have with the process as it stands. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's only a perceived problem though, not an actual problem. By which I mean that Raul may very well pick your Kansas Turnpike article for the mainpage anyway. This process is simply to suggest five articles to be amongst the bunch that he schedules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Turnpike appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as TFA on April 12, 2008. It was on requested March 15, 2008 and listed on April 4, 2008. It had nine supports and no oppose. Halgin (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I nominated Kansas Turnpike. Halgin (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability point

Wehwalt, just a thought. Look at what is making it on the page, and look at the pending template ... a strong date connection on an older article almost always does the trick, which preferences bios and other article types that have built-in dates. Something to think about in terms of losing the notability point, which may be the only chance some more "educational" articles have. I sure wish we could make that "included in a children's encyclopedia" idea work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we had a concept that would work . . . I don't object to the principle, just the practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this. I can access my local library from home via the internet. I can search online their catalog of books in the children's portion of the library. The issue is whether a 12-yo would write a school report on the topic. This is where children go to research school projects. As an example, I get the following number of books in our children's library when searching on:

• Emily Dickinson – 58
• Planet – 448
• Dwarf planet – 1 (published 2008, probably because it's too new)
• Michael Jackson – 21
• Yellowstone fires – 4
• Augustus – 73 (but they aren't all him, I'd have to refine the search, but he's got books)

But

• Ann Bannon – 0
• Noble gas – 0
• Peterloo Massacre – 0 (US centric)
• William IV – 0 (US centric)
• Donald Bradman – 0 (US centric)

So, on the 0 hits, what if I try an amazon.com children's books search?

• Ann Bannon 0
• Noble gas 49
• Peterloo massacre 27
• William IV of the United Kingdom 0
• Donald Bradman, listed in several encyclopedias

As an example, see if this link works for Michael Jackson, children's books:

• http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=node%3D4&field-keywords=Michael+Jackson

So, looking for William IV, to avoid US-centric, I skip amazon.com and go to amazon.com.uk, Children's books:

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/william-iv-Childrens-Books/s/qid=1218759011/ref=sr_nr_n_2?ie=UTF8&rs=266239&keywords=%26%2334%3BWilliam%20IV%26%2334%3B&bbn=69&rnid=1025612&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3A%26%2334%3BWilliam%20IV%26%2334%3B%2Cn%3A69

And, Donald Bradman, too:

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/donald-bradman-Childrens-Books/s/qid=1218758641/ref=sr_nr_n_0?ie=UTF8&rs=266239&keywords=Donald%20Bradman&bbn=69&rnid=1025612&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3ADonald%20Bradman%2Cn%3A69

Is this idea working? If there are children's books written on the topic, then children can research the topic for a school report. All the editor has to do to justify the point is to produce, say, three to five children's books on the topic, and that could include a full encyclopedic entry (TOC, not index). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Not everything gets books written about it. For example the various science things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me an example, and I'll look in my library and on various online book searches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC) P.S., I would suggest a combination of children's encyclopedia TOC entries and children's books available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another P.S. Amazon.com has Germany | France | Japan | Canada | China in addition to US and UK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see how the proposal is phrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate wordsmithing. It would involve the requestor producing some combination of x number of children's books or encyclopedic TOC entries, but only if challenged ... most are obvious. We wouldn't challenge Planet, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in most cases, an amazon.com Children's books search link should suffice, and in trickier cases, the children's encyclopedia entries would have to be added on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Example: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=node%3D4&field-keywords=Dwarf+planet Dwarf planets should get the point, tons of children's books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson example sort of bothers me. Also, Sandy, when I was 12, and did a report, I don't think I was limited to the children's section. Twelve is definitely at the upper range for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I tried. So we'll continue to have more of the same. Although the concept of school reports for 12-yos should be quite easy to nail down one way or another, every proposal has been denied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is hopeless, we could say that it is determined by common sense, such as multiple children's books written about same, inclusion as a topic in school books or encyclopediae, etc. etc. Of course, verification could be an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the whole 12 year old thing anyway. How did that come to be how we decide how fundamental (a word I'd prefer to notable, as everything in WP should be notable) a topic is? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious too. Frankly, I think we would be better off abolishing it as what we called in my College Bowl days a "protest maker", but Sandy feels strongly about keeping some version of it and I am not inclined to get into an argument about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first version of the merit-based system, put in place in March 2008. If anyone has time, I suggest reviewing the talk page archives from around that time. If nothing there, ask Raul. My guess is that it's intended to promote diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely it would be more likely to limit diversity rather than promote it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

View it in the context of the typical requests on this page when it was out of control with hundreds of requests, examples here and here. But I'm just guessing, and suggest a review of archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The "12-year-old" rule was Raul's idea. In this thread, he said "The rule of thumb I'm using for the moment is - is it something that a 5th grader would have heard of." It eventually changed from a 5th grader to a 12-year-old. Epbr123 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I suppose that Raul can use whatever rule(s) he likes for his own choices, but I don't believe that should constrain this process. So far as notability is concerned. Anyway we're not all twelve at the same time or in the same place, so the idea seems flawed. I remember writing an essay on the Etruscans when I was about twelve, for which I relied pretty heavily on another enclyclopedia. Are 5th graders in the US taught about the Etruscans? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, whatever Raul said then, what he has said lately (paraphrasing) is that he doesn't much care how we come up with the five to present to him, as long as we present five, so I suppose we can do whatever we want with this notability issue. My concern is that, if we do away with the notion altogether, we might preference certain types of articles, but only time will tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have been selecting a lot of anniversaries, and they have been coming from all over the map. Seems fair enough to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that gives Fall Out Boy a point, should it (unlikely) ever get this far.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

September 7th is Threatened Species Day in Oz...

September 7th is Threatened Species Day in Oz...and dammit, the two Oz threatened taxa (Green and Golden Bell Frog and Banksia brownii) have already been on main page, however Red-tailed Black Cockatoo has two threatened subspecies, and White-winged Fairy-wren has one, now I come to think of it. So now to figure out points I guess. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cas, you added it to the pending template, but there's an opening on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Last bird was July 30, last animal August 15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that is sufficiently obvious to the reader to be worth the one point. After all, the date will nowhere appear in the article. Also, neither seems to be threatened across Australia (even the subspecies), there is some state regulation, according to the articles, but does it rise to the level of a threatened species?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some anniversaries for September

I was disappointed we missed a 100-year mark with an article a while back. The following anniversaries that may be relevant for September, if anyone wants to fill out the paperwork.

• 9 September - The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) released 1927
• 15 September - John Bull (locomotive) built 1831, restored 1981
• 20 September - Victoria Cross for New Zealand established 1999
• 25 September - U2 formed 1976
• 27 September - Lawrence Sullivan Ross born 1838

Gimmetrow 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, U2 is in the template. There's some uncertainty on this talk page about whether regulars here should put requests forward, or leave it to the community. For example, the 170-yr birthday should have a lot of points, but another editor addd that date to the pending template and is likely to come back to add that request ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, so it is. The talk page of the pending page points here. Gimmetrow 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let individual editors put their own nominations forward, to lower the claims of cliquerie that have been brought forth here from time to time. Help out the clueless and so forth, but don't overmanage.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar topics

Howdy! I've been considering nominating noitulovE for the October 3 slot, but I'd like a quick clarification on how how it would fall under the "Main page representation" criteria. As an advertisement, noitulovE appeared in both cinemas and in homes, so should it be classed as similar to films, television programmes, both, or neither?

If individual advertisements are distinct from other publications in the same medium, then by my reckoning, the article would have four points (date, contributor history, and two for no similar article, as no other article on an advertisement in any medium has yet been shown on the Main Page) If noitulovE is classed as a television programne, then it should be listed as having -1, 0, or 2 points depending on whether an article on a television programme is scheduled for September.

So, is it worth my time nominating the article? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it would be different from both a TV and movie, and should get the full measure of points GeeJo has stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled"

I'm too lazy busy to refresh my memory why we plumped for this period, but it seems to me that a simple solution to premature nominations clogging up slots for long periods would be... to reduce the number from 30 days. I don't have a figure in mind, but we could do 25 days? 3 weeks? 20 days? 15 days? 2 weeks? Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that too, either under my proposed system or under the existing system. I think 15 days would be good. --Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This question may betray my lack of understanding, but doesn't the cycle for this process need to match the cycle of Raul's scheduling of the main page? In other words, if he does that every 30 days, then we need to be giving him five nominations every 30 days, not five every 15 days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such cycle!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, employing the well-worn principle of reductio ad absurdum, do you think that Raul would be happy to be given five nominations every day, or even every week? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the process should ideally match the cycle of Raul's scheduling, but Raul doesn't do the scheduling at regular intervals. It varies between a few days and a few weeks. Epbr123 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul said five articles at a time. Since under any system some of those five are going to be beyond what Raul is scheduling, I don't see a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The potential problem is rather that they be be for a period that Raul has already scheduled. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have information that says Raul schedules some period of time before it is publicly posted on the This Month's Queue page?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of tweaking the timeframe until we get a point system that consistently works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been 2 weeks, maybe it time to open this one up again. Halgin (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I was just thinking that the page seems to be finally working as it should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Why tamper with a working system?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

points system

I am a bit surprised that something like Alzheimer's disease might possibly have only 2 points on its own day... something is now working well at all... Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It might have something to do with notability and media attention: Same happens with the 11-S flight. Could some points be given (something like two more) if that date the topic is going to be covered in other media and/or people outside wikipedia are prone to be more interested and search the net for information on that topic that precise day? Seems quite ridiculous to give only one point in the 11-S anniversary or the alzheimer's day for date since both topics are usually covered in worldwide channels in news and documentaries every year.--Garrondo (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This relatively new 'system' just serves to confuse users (especially new ones) with the intention of preventing others from taking part, while a small group of users hold the keys and say on what is the apparent 'consensus' on what should appear when. The system even has a bias in favour of featured articles on older subjects. Logic is significantly lacking and I really think we should return to the simpler more wiki-esque times of friendly consensual discussion. Agent Blightsoot 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the point system worse than the one it replaced, the first come and no replacement? Halgin (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well of course it's worse. Raul simply chose requests on context and the basis of the request, not because of some flawed points system. The previous system allowed for a greater discussion of requests, and for a greater quantity - thus getting more people involved. This one limits the choices, and leaves the discussion and apparent 'consensus' in the hands of the people who created the system to back up their flawed opinion of what amounts to a good request. Agent Blightsoot 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul has repeatedly said that we may present only 5 nominations at a time. Before there was a point system, it was simply first come, first served, and there was almost no chance of replacing an article that was already proposed for a certain date. The point system is supposed to give an opportunity to replace articles that might not have as much support. Is it perfect? Not at all. What we need are concrete suggestions on how it can be improved, while still remaining within the parameters that Raul set (no more than 5 mons at a time) and while still allowing users to replace nominations. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A Proposal: A new section called something like social relevance with two options: 1-is the article topic likely to be featured in the media at a national level that day? (+1). 2- Is the article topic likely to be featured in the media at an international level that day. (+2)(A way to prove it would be to demonstrate it appeared the year before). With such criteria very relevant topics due to date, which are likely to be searched over internet that day will get more points as is the case of 11-S flight or Alzheimer's.--Garrondo (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Augustus

As I have stated at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#WP:TFAR, I would like to nominate Augustus. I am not sure what is on the bubble especially given the above section that is going to replace what is currently considered to be on the bubble. Its points are 1 for age, 1 for timing, 2 for importance, ? for main page relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any August dates left. I guess you'd be OK as a four pointer for September 23, his birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I meant on his birthday. I was hoping for an opinion on extra points for main page concerns and an explanation of which article is on the bubble.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Flight 93 is on the bubble, because I think Yellowstone's points are solidly 4. I would not advise replacing Flight 93, unless you want to deal with the consequences. I think all you get is the four. Despite my protests to the contrary, apparently royalty ruled the day with Princess Alice in August.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are emperors considered royalty? Does Princess Alice, George I, Tiridates I or Edward VIII count as a similar article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No one tried to say a basketball player (Yao Ming), baseball player {Moe Berg) or Cricketer (Donald Bradman) was similar to an American football player (Tyrone Wheatley).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the consequences of following the rules?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there an unwritten rule about replacing a well-received 3 with a deserving 4?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to replace Flight 93. Just let me step back a couple of hundred metres first and duck behind this sturdy rock. As for the royalty, we both got our articles bounced in August within days after the Princess Alice came up, so I'm kinda assuming.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We both?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if protocol says I am suppose to wait until the next update rather than replace such a popular choice since it is unlikely that he will go out to the 23rd let me know?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Augustus was nominated for Aug 19 [4]. Wehwalt is confused, maybe he thinks you nominated it. Both Augustus and William IV got lots of opposition after Princess Alice was made a TFA. As far as replacing a popular request, people that supported the other article will likely oppose or at least not support the replacement. If 75% of the community votes oppose it, then the replacement will be removed. Even if it does not get removed from the page, Raul may not use it. It is best not to replace a popular request. Halgin (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The current process reflects both points and community input. If Augustus replaces a popular request, it will likely receive quick opposes, be removed, the other request restored --> waste of everyone's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Halgin is correct, I thought Tony nominated it originally. My bad. Doesn't really change my point, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say that I would support Augustus on the main page for 31 days in a row if I had the choice, so, if this bumps off a nom, I would definitely support it for his birthday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT can always give it a try; the current system allows for both points and community input, which is a good thing. But as others have said, "let me step back a couple of hundred metres first". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think I can safely wait because it is unlikely that the next round of scheduling will include the 23rd. Thus, can be considerate and not nominate right now. However, we should think about whether we should agree to a set of instructions to guide us in a situation like this where it can not be resolved by waiting and a tougher decision has to be made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This page is uber-creepy. Word. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New rule

We need a safe rule, to give guidance on when an article should not be replaced by an article with a higher point total. Something like if the number of supports plus three times the point total exceeds the sum of 25 plus the number of oppositions the article is in a safe range for articles with dates later than it or more than 10 days in the future. For closer dates and dates earlier than the contested article the number could be 30.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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). In July I proposed we should use a modified version using net support for tie breakers ( shown here). Halgin (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you made an attempt in the past to sort of make articles with a certain level of support safe. I am trying to rationalize why there is resistance to my removing the three point September 11 for the four point (five or six if emperors are not counted as royalty) Augustus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern would be is that unless we are careful in its application, the rule will effectively put us back in the position of not being able to replace articles. I'd want a pretty high bar for a "safe harbor" clause.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How high should the bar be. Is September 11 high enough that an article with a higher point total should not be able to bump it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is working; we don't need more rules. Yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

People are telling me not to replace September 11 with Augustus because of the number of supports. So I am trying to find a way to rationalize it. If people really believe a three with a lot of support should be able to bump a four then we need to make it clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT, do what you please. But I suspect there will be spite opposes if you replace 93. Raul's bound to schedule in the next week, your article doesn't come up for three weeks, be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt, the page is now working as intended. You could replace the request if you wanted, but because 92 enjoys widespread support, the replacement would get quick opposes. The page is intended to reflect points plus community input, it's doing that, it's working, others have merely tried to give TTT advice, but it's his choice if he wants to risk it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys are so interested in daring me to make the change that you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I understand the system pretty well and see that I can add Augustus easily without replacing a popular choice. In the future someone could come along and in the excitement of attempting to get their hard work featured do something that is merely following the rules. You seem to be saying that the system is working because the flaw has not yet been exposed. Look the flaw is there. By the current rules the proper thing to do is to replace a three-pointer with a four-pointer. You should have rules for situations like this when the bubble article is well-supported and another article should be replaced. There should be rules to protect well-supported lower point articles if that is how you want the system to work and it seems you want the system to work that way. Why not have rules to make the system work the way you want?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, it seems more like it is you who isn't paying attention to what we are saying :-) We don't need more rules and the current system deals with the scenario you mention. If someone replaced a popular request with an unpopular one, it would be corrected by the current system. We don't need to wikilawyer or put more rules in place to cover every possibility; the instructions are already accused of being creepy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to leave it as it is. There will be problems whenever the thing on the bubble is highly-supported. In the future, I predict this will be a contentious issue. This is not my farm so work it however you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion with priorities

There are several days per year when important prizes are awarded. For the sake of an example, Nobel prizes in chem are awarded on Dec 10. In this case, I believe that a chem article should have some kind of priority to get onto the mainpage. There are other articles that would fit on this day, say an writer's death, but I believe that if everything else is equal, the chem article should win. (Actually for this year proteasome would be a good example) Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ALL Nobel prizes are awarded that day. It's also Human Rights Day. I don't think we should be reserving dates in advance. Nominate and let's see if there's a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prizes for each subject are named on different days although the award ceremony is on one day. You might want to try the dates that the winners are announced. Of course, if one of the winners has an FA bio or a related article is FA the day of the awards should be considered.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the winners are announced in early October. Here [5] is the schedule. December 10 I think is Nobel's date of death.

20 days?

Seeing that maaany 4&5 pointers are supossed to show up, would it be a good idea to reduce the 30-day nomiantion period to 25 or 20? Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul has requested a 30-day period, and it seems to be working fine. Not sure what this "many supposed to show up" is; perhaps because I once mentioned I knew of many, which doesn't mean they are going to show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to wait a long time for Wheatley

I am realizing the article I had nominated for October 4, Tyrone Wheatley, is going to have to wait a while because he shares his birth date with vital article Edgar Allen Poe who will mark the 200th anniversary of his birth on Wheatley's next birthday.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Date change for article

I was planning of nominating the Battle of Dyrrachium (1081) to appear on the 18th October which is the anniversary of the battle. As I was looking through next month's main page features, I noticed that the article has been scheduled to appear on the front page on the 2nd of September. Since User:Raul654 is away until the 2nd of September, I thought I might as well ask here and see if there is any possible way that the article could be changed with another one so that I'd be able to nominate it for its anniversairy. Kyriakos (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think you're stuck with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for another point

Article is part of a Featured topic. Help to give the featured topics more exposure. BUC (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for all featured topics, but IMO hurricanes and planets (for example) have enough exposure already. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe give an extra point ONLY if they are the first article to be nominated from the topic? Also, hurricanes and planets will receive enough boos anyways that even with this point I doubt they will make it. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose, on both, unless we are also getting rid of the notable point, which is basically unworkable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel articles that are part of FTs are more relevant for the main page. I think currently point are given for things that are more relevant for the main page along various dimensions, except for the point to encourage involvement of new nominators.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. wrt planets, I think Earth on Earth Day might overcome the saturation effect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, don't see any relevance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Sandy, don't see how this would get FT's more exposure. I'd like to see the system simplified before we add stuff. Oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Sandy agreed with me!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus;

Halgin's added this one to the Template, giving it a point because the article its discoverer published, was published on October 19. I think that's a little bit far flung. I could see it if the dino was discovered on Oct 19, but I'm a little leery just because the paper was published on Oct 19 . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you...that seems to be stretching the intent. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Help to nominate Anekantavada

I would like to nominate Anekantavada for the main page for 3rd Sept, but I am not sure how to nominate, as already 5 articles are put up for nomination. As per the point system it has 5 points as follows:-

• Date relevant to topic – 1 Point – The date coincides with major 8 day Jain festival of forgiveness and fasting – Paryushana is from 27th August to 3rd Sept. The last day of the Paryushana is the most important days for Jains.
• Contributor History – 1 Point – No previous article on main page and Significant Contributor.
• Diversity – 1 Point – Jainism is under-represented
• Main page representation – 2 Points – A similar article has not featured on the main page since last six months.--Anish (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles up to and including 3 Sept have already been selected - is there an alternative date after this which is significant? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that Diversity is in relation to the category the article is listed on at WP:FA, so you don't get a point for the number of articles on Jainism. However, this article is listed in the religion category, which is under-represented, so you still get the diversity point. As Pek pointed out, the dates you prefer are not available. That still leaves a four point nomination. You can either replace a lower nomination article, or, since there is not a particular date, wait until there is an empty spot and then nominate for a random date. Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no means of determining which article is next to be replaced. There is a 3-pointer with wide support, and an IAR 2 or 4-pointer with wide support. Which is next off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove noitulovE temporarily (as it's the furthest from now), then reinstate it once Raul has selected the next batch? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem even if 3rd Sept is blocked. 27th August to 3rd Sept is Paryushana for Svetambara Jains. On the other hand Digambara Jains follow next 10 or 11 days (Depending on Indian Calendar) as Paryushana. So Digambara Paryushana is from 4th Sept to 14th Sept this year. The last day i.e. Samvatsari for Digambara's is 14th Sept which is once again an important day. So I guess 14th Sept would be a nice date and we would be still be maintaining the "Date relevant to topic" criteria. So I guess the five points will remain.--Anish (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a four pointer. You had Huldrych Zwingli in May, and certainly religious leaders fall in the same category as religious observances.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think so…..it is not religious observance…but more of a philosophical concept or principle. Secondly, even if we were to consider Anekantavada and Huldrych Zwingli within the same category (which somehow do not look to be same categories)…one article in last six months or so is under-representation.--Anish (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, philosophical principles. Conatus on July 1? I guess it is a three pointer then. You can't draw the categories for purposes for similarity infinitely small.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend…there is not an iota of resemblance between Anekantavada and Conatus; one is in relation to religious philosophy of an Indian religion and another is more of a genre of secular philosophy of classical and modern philosophers. No remote connection. So it is still a five pointer.--Anish (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. As I have said, for purposes of similarity, you don't get to divide categories infinitely, if it is religious, there have been religious articles, if it is philosophy, there have been philosophical articles. Choose your ground and stand on it! In addition, just because the day you have selected is a Jain (forgive me if I get the adjective wrong) observance, I don't see that this gives Anekantavada a date-relevance point. I read through the article, and I don't see those observances mentioned anywhere. Anymore than an important principle of the Christian religion would get a point, say, on a Christian holdiay.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Clever point Wehwalt (alluding to Martin Luther's Here I stand, related to Huldrych Zwingli). Yes, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Points aside, Anish is keen to see an article he worked hard to adapt to lots of constructive feedback and achieve FA, featured on the main page. He's noticed that the perfect time for this is somewhere in the date ranges above.

May I suggest a compromise? I think the Jain holy days are a perfect time for an even more central article, like Jainism itself to be featured on the main page. Perhaps we should be planning that a year in advance?

Meanwhile, anekantavada could be main-paged some other time in between.

If I may be cheeky, perhaps it should gain a point for ahimsa (non-violence) and surrendering a relevant holy day to other bidders, in lieu of the point it would have scored at that time. ;)

But returning topic areas infrequently represented, I actually think these are disjunctive, not conjunctive, or the most widely interesting articles would score the fewest points! Global warming would be impossible to send to the main page, because it bears on every nation, science, society and even history, whereas All your base belong to us is irrelevant to almost anything, so would hardly have had a similar article represented on the main page.

If religion and philosophy are considered to be currently over-represented in recent main page displays, perhaps India is under-represented? I guess the important thing is, no page has a "right" to being featured at the main page; however, many pages can offer coverage of topics that are under-represented.

My personal feeling is anekantavada gives representation to several important but infrequently featured topics, and want to support Anish in encouraging the main page team to take advantage of that at the time that best suits in their judgement.

Is it, however, possible to provisionally "book" a day in the Jain holy weeks 2009, and work towards having maybe two or three Jain featured articles available to the main page team to select from nearer to that time? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I will support it when it hits the request page. I'm just trying to hold the line on the points. And it will have a decent number of points; I think it is unlikely to be replaced. I'm sure it will get solid support. Don't mind me. Unhappily, it is too early to "book" dates like that, Anish is just going to have to pick at date and try to hold on to it. I think it would be a political disaster were he to to try to replace the 9/11 article, my advice is to wait until the 9/8 and 9/11 slots open up and then pick a date and I'm sure everything will be fine. I think four points should be enough to hold a slot on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I am not changing my stance here. There seems to be confusion (in a cultural sense) between words Religion and Philosophy. Eastern religions do not distinguish much between religion and philosophy. There is a lot of overlapping. That’s why I said religious philosophy. True, Anekantavada is a principle and not an observance. The reason why I gave date relevance point, is the custom of asking forgiveness from all creatures on the last day stems from Anekantavada and Ahimsa. I am still not conversant with the points system. However from what I have understood, I suggested 5 points. Anyway, points can be decided by consensus. --Anish (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the support, whenever it hits the request page.

Thanks to both of you, Wehwalt and Anish. It seems to me you are both doing your jobs well. Anish is making the best case possible for Wikipedia and Jainism from one perspective, Wehwalt is warning Anish not to get his hopes up too high and explaining where he sees alternative perspectives. But the bottom line is exactly what both of you agree on, the final decision will depend on "political" processes and "consensus" (to pick out words used by each of you slightly out of their context). The main thing is that both perspectives are heard in the course of a final decision being made. That said, I personally see things from Anish's point of view, because I know his area, but I'm ignorant regarding how main page decisions are made and the factors involved in arriving at decisions. All I can do is trust that those who do weigh these things will do so with creativity and consideration, and I'm sure they will, whichever way they decide. Best regards to everyone, Alastair Haines (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the level of creativity, actually, that you are proposing. It feels like you are seeking more points than the article merits. One of the purposes of this talk page is to determine disputes like this before the article goes to the request page, and there is give and take in the process. I note a religious article, well, it's not really religion, it is philosophy. I note a philosophy article, well, it's religious philosophy. I note that the date relevance point doesn't really seem to be satisfied, well, it is at the root of things by custom. While I noted I was likely to support it, if I feel there is overreaching, I will certainly reconsider. Please read the rules and, where relevant, prior talk page discussions on points, and come up with a more realistic figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse there is a give and take in the process. I never said these points were final. I was merely addressing the concerns raised by you. It's upto you how you take it. I am simply waiting for more comments to built up a consensus. If you feel there is level of creativity, overreaching and excess points, please feel free to change the points. I won't revert it. I would like your support to be merit based on article....and not on basis of how much I have agreed with you on points. Like I said before, I am not fully conversant with this points system and will abide by the consensus. But I do need to express what I have understood in this process. Thanks for the forbearance and guidance.--Anish (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So any idea whether it will be featured on the main page (maybe on 14th Sept)?--Anish (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with Alanya

September 6, 2008 is the 400 year anniversary of the successful defeat of the Republic of Venice by the Turkish city of Alanya. That would be six points, but with no others that I am aware of. There hasn't been a city article since Ann Arbor on August 5, so it misses that deduction by a day. Alanya has been a featured article since February, but I'm not sure how to nominate it here. Do I really just delete the nomination with lowest points? That would be United 93, which for personal reasons, I would strongly support getting on TFA for 9/11.

Besides the September 11 article, the next lowest number of point is a tie between Alzheimer's and noitulovE, this Guinness commercial. However when I went to replace the one with the lower amount of support, per my reading of the instructions, I was rebuffed and my edits undone. Couldn't noitulovE, which is requesting a date just one day inside the date window be reposted later? Can I have some help?--Patrick Ѻ 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's between Alzheimer's and the flight, not the advertisement. Alzheimer's has 1) questionable points (they are based on IAR per a one-day difference), 2) is supported by less editors than the flight, and 3) has a better chance at making it in the next round, unless Raul schedules a couple of weeks at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My conern with Alanya's gonna be that this is an article about the city, not the "battle", which has a grand total of one sentence devoted to same. Which has almost nothing on the web about it, and it isn't gonna be at all clear to the reader why this is on the main page. I'm not totally clear that an article on the city, which had a nearby naval battle (against the Order of Saint Stephen, not the Republic of Venice) gets the six points for the 400th anniversary of that battle.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And showing up quite literally at the last possible minute (Raul will be scheduling soon) doesn't give the community time to sort it, either. We might have to think about that for future instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As it says in a local clerk's office "your lack of planning doesn't consititute my emergency." Yeah, I'd like us at some point to, say, require a week's notice. Raul's going to schedule sometime in the next 24 hours. We have no real time to debate this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize for the short notice. According to the instructions, dates from September 4 to October 4 are possible. It is still important for me to at least try and nominate the article. Would you have me replace the Alzheimer's article with this?--Patrick Ѻ 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, Sandy, would he be better off putting a note on Raul's talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't give advice in that area. While I've noted that Raul seems to have an infinite capacity for patience, I'm really unsure how he feels about last minute inquiries on his talk page. There is a troubling precedent here that the community doesn't have a chance to discuss the merits of this article. I guess "your lack of planning doesn't constitute my emergency" sums it up, and Patrickneil will have to decide on approaching Raul on his talk page or replacing Alzheimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He did, though I am somewhat troubled at the way he phrased it, I did not recommend he do so, I merely asked Sandy for her advice. Also, I feel he continues to inflate the importance of the naval encounter he wants to "honor". I guess it is better than disrupting the project page by eliminating an article which is in the course of discussion, but not much.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a clear COI since I proposed the Alzheimer article, but I do not really feel that the points for the 400 years should be given, since the 400 years is for the battle and not for the city. On the other hand if Alzheimer's does not appear in the main page the 21 it will probably mean that something is not working very well on this page... Only my opinion, but the social relevance and interest at a global world level of Alzheimer or the 11-S flight clearly outweights that of a TV advertising, a boat sinking, or a 400,000 inhabitants city any day of the year; much more on the days proposed to appear in main page.--Garrondo (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I'd tend to agree on all points, and since I don't have an article on the page, I don't have a COI. I don't think last minute "emergencies" should be encouraged, the one sentence on this "battle" has been in the article since September of 2007 and it is an editor's job to be familiar with "his" article. There is no reason this could not have gone through the normal process. I'm also troubled by the fact that the importance of this battle seems to be inflated (the city beat off some rogue knights, and suddenly it's being represented as a defeat for the whole Republic of Venice), the extremely limited info out there on the battle (without buying the JSTOR article, I can't even confirm this "battle" happened), and the questionable claims being made, both of the six points and that Sandy and I recommended he leave a note on Raul's talk page. This page can be an intimidating experience for rookies and everyone, but I'm just taken aback at the way this is happening. If Raul chooses to feature the article, well, Godspeed, I don't have a problem, but I've got a process issue with the way this is being done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Intimidating, yes Wehwalt. That's why I asked for help. Perhaps I should have used "suggested" when asking for Mark's help. I did not mean to put words in your mouth. I don't mean to harp, but I feel I was following the rules and the "normal process" as laid out, and just because there exist different interpretations of point totals doesn't mean I'm disregarding rules. Yes, something will wrong with this if Alzheimer's isn't featured on the 21st. I do recall the simple process a year ago when it just was that the date needed to be soon. I went to Mark because I was intimidated here.--Patrick Ѻ 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to keep up with this because I'm traveling, but I have no doubt that Mark/Raul will make the right call, whatever that means in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Point ruling needed Augustus vs Joseph W. Tkach

It has been determined that on September 23 Joseph W. Tkach is a five point article. I have not gotten clarification of whether emperors count as royalty or similar enough to effect Main page representation points. On September 23 Augustus is only a four point article without main page representation points. Does an emperor count as royalty.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph W. Tkach hasn't been requested, and no one here makes a "point ruling"; consensus determines questionable issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He is on the chart above, which is why I ask.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know you were travelling, but I had hoped for some response on the 04:49, 6 September 2008 edit above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tkach may have serious problems because of the August 29 appearance of Walter de Coventre. A religious leader is a religious leader, I guess. That would knock Tkach down to two points. I am of the opinion that an emperor is royalty, meaning that Augustus seems likely to be a four point article, I haven't looked closely at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Put Augustus on pending list. Write the points you think it should have. If there is a question on a point, we can see if we can come to consensus, here. Halgin (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, I added Tkach to the pending list when I happened across the date; I have no reason to believe it will be requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2, 2008 TFA

I am planning to possibly nominate either the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article or the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article for TFA on November 2nd, or I might nominate an article that I am currently working on to also do with Formula One. I think the date fits in well, as it is the date of the final round of the 2008 Formula One season. I'm asking here to see if anyone else wanted to have that date as TFA, as it may be several weeks before I make my final decision. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the pending template and see what happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've left a hidden note saying I *may* change it to a similar article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Next to be replaced

Karanacs, I removed this because the page is in a strange place right now. Both disputed articles, at two or four points, straddle Sept 11 at 3 points, so unless the dispute is resolved, we don't know who's next off. I would say that since the four points on Alzheimer's has broad consensus, it's no longer disputed, so actually, September 11 may be next off, depending on whether consensus forms over Jena Six. We need a means of working these situations out, but it will go away as soon as Raul schedules September 11, in which case, Jena Six will be next off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question/Article Suggestion for Sept 13th

I just read through all the rules on requesting a "today's featured article", and I'm not sure how to proceed so I'll make the initial proposal here: The 2007 USC Trojans football team was very recently promoted. This Saturday, September 13 will have what has been long considered the biggest regular-season college football game of 2008, between USC and Ohio State (sources for that claim: [6][7][8][9]). I thought it would be interesting to have this article on that day. Here is my estimate of the points, do they work? 1 pt as a date relevant to article topic (program part of the biggest game of season on day); 1 pt contributor history (main contributor, never had one featured); 2 pts for mainpage representation of American football --here it would depend on how you read this "dissimilar articles": The last American football-related article was the History of American football (2/3/08), there has been a recent hockey (09/05/08) and association football (04/23/08), but I feel the latter two fall under "dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category" rather than a similar article. There is currently no conflict for September 13. Should I move forward and create a proposed summary on the article's talk page or here? Thanks for any input, I'm new to this. --Bobak (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the date relevance point, as the date is not mentioned in the article. (If the article were on USC-Ohio State rivalry, then I'd give the point, but it's not.) USC will play between 11–13 games this year, it's stretching it for me to put an article about last year's football team on a date that this year's team is playing. That would leave it with 3 points, which may be enough to remove Jena Six or Alzheimer's - Jena Six has a lower support percentage right now, so it's probably next to be replaced. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Except Jena Six may have four points, we have reached no consensus. Alzheimer's may have two or four points, as well. This should be an interesting puzzle.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we have this puzzle, because we have to figure out a way to figure these out in the future. For example, Az had been up long enough and has enough support that (??) shouldn't we be able to say now that it has solid 4-point support? Seriously, the discrepancy is one day. I'm troubled that every football game for every college would get date relevance. Seems like boosterism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And part of my concern is that Jena Six hasn't been up long enough to build similar support. It needs to be given a similar chance. We're rewarding getting in early again. And we need to decide if we are going to be flexible with rules like that, when it apparently now makes the difference as to which article gets dumped. It's a tough situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to say that requests need to be in x days before their date? That could have pitfalls. We wouldn't have an issue right now if the ball game hadn't appeared at the last minute, similar to the Alanya situation. We'd have time to sort them. But how do we sort them, when all have similar points? Put one up and see if it gets kicked off, so the other one can come back? That's inefficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Advantages to getting in early, advantages to getting in late. I don't know that Alanya has started a trend; I think the football game is independent of that. What we need is a means of efficiently resolving disputes on this page. For example Alzheimers is probably technically two points, but it is a popular article and the dispute is over only one day. But I don't have a clue how to do it!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a little nervous that this isn't going to be settled until there's an edit war over equal point requests. We need a mechanism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would pause at calling this sort of date-matching boosterism, rather "season relevancy". While its great there was a hockey article a few weeks ago, I think it would've been more interesting while the season was going on --particularly on a game day. I would argue NFL-related articles would work best on Sundays and Mondays during the season; and other sports on their common game days. --Bobak (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bowl season, or even the date of the BCS game, strikes me as an excellent time for such an article, rather than in the middle of a rather long regular season. The hockey thing was Raul's choice, not proposed on these pages; his privilege. I really didn't look at it to see if there was a date connection or anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I was actually hoping to have this ready for the start of the season, but it didn't clear FAC in time. There are currently only two of these floating around: 2005 Texas and now 2007 USC. I must say that these rules are pretty hard to understand on first glance (as in --if I don't think my suggestions will work for the first 5, then where do I place it? How will it ever get reviewed?) It really isn't clear other than people seem to want to have a reason not to look at suggestions that otherwise qualify. --Bobak (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, I'm not sure if you realize that there are at least 1,000 FAs waiting to get on the main page, and about 400 that have been waiting longer than a year (just to put your request in perspective). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it's rather short notice. Raul could schedule September 13 at any moment. Even if it had enough points to get on the top five (I honestly don't think it does), there would be very short amount of time to look at it. I don't have a major dog in it, because if Jena Six got bumped by you, I'd wait around and renominate after Raul schedules.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize there are a number of other FAs, and I realize its short notice --but we all know that to get things done you have to Be Bold ;-) --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to throw out suggetions. How about in the case of a tie, there is a detriment to the one furthest away in time because it has time to come back? Mind, I'm not saying it is automatically off the island, just some sort of a detriment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

IF all else is equal, that would be good, but two problems. Rarely is all else equal, and that's a risk. Sometimes Raul schedules further out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, back to basics then. Perhaps if there's a dispute we can't resolve, we call in an uninvolved third party. We do have people on WP who make it their vocation to resolve disputes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending Requests Update

We should look at the points in Pending Requests since number of TFA added. I think Edward Wright (mathematician) should losses the 1 point for nothing similar in 3 months, because mathematician Emmy Noether was TFA on Sep 4. (Halgin (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)).

Sounds right. Elaine Page loses a couple of points because of Jackie Chan.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Paige occupations are singer and actress. Jackie Chan occupations also include actor and singer. I didn't know about his singing until I read the article. It scheduled for a couple of day from now. Also, Chinua Achebe, TFA for Sep 9, and Ann Bannon pending for Sep 15 are both novelist. Ann Bannon will lose 3 points because it is within two weeks of requested date. It would be a -2 point article. Halgin (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable topic

The notable topic point seems to be suffering from neglect. How is it suppose to be used and is this a rule worth keeping. Maybe this could be replaced by my 25 year anniversary rule mentioned above that would actually be useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support that, since most of the articles we seem to be nominating are date relevance articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion on this rule because all articles are suppose to pass WP:N and it is hard to distinguish between something that rises to the notability standards to belong in an encyclopedia and something that is likely to be researched.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, beyond the sort of eyeball estimate, "There's no way a sixth grade teacher would let a 12 year old write a report on this." I'd abolish the point and put some other measure in. And, Tony, I'm perfectly open to having your 25 year proposal. Though I might tinker with both year rules a bit, because I don't think a, say, 340th anniversary is particularly significant. Say sunset both the 10 and 25 at 200 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At risk of creeping, I would make 5-yr 1.5 points to give odd five years an advantage (priority) over other relevant dates. Not sure how to sunset because it gets into creeping as well. Your solution is O.K. I might even sunset at 100 years for those two by taking them down to 1.5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise against half points, as a side issue that people might quibble at, but it is your proposal. Suggest you write it up and post it and ask for support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized. You may want to reconsider the sunset. I think it might help offset a new subject bias.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the fifth is probably unnecessary, unless your intent is just for the five-year and that's it. I could live with not sunsetting the 25 year. Although something like 525 year seems to me to be, if we miss it, we miss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there's already too much emphasis placed on date relevance, and we need to get back to notability relevance for balance. We had several workable proposals that haven't been accepted; it shouldn't be that hard to come up with something we can agree on. I don't understand the block. We don't need more date points; we need diversity and other means of getting on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there is too much emphasis on date relevance there is no need to have a non-sensical rule that gives priority to 10 over 25 year anniversaries, IMO. If we have too much emphasis, we could remove the date relevance. However, encouraging people to prioritize inlogically seems wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sept 11 events

I posted this in the wrong spot at first, so here is the redeux... thanks for the tips SandyGeorgia...

considering the 7th anniversary does not strike me as especially noteworthy from a numerological standpoint (unlike 50 years, 100 years etc)... it seems we are at a point where every anniversary will get the same reverent treatment (TFA and featured pic)... we don't do this for Pearl Harbor every year so is there a particular reason we do it for 9/11? Like are we planning on waiting 60-odd years before we stop (to continue the PH comparison)? Every five years or every ten years makes some sense to me, but every single year seems a little, well, morbid at this point. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to contend with the fact that 9/11 has considerable emotional appeal, especially with Flight 93 one of the major players (and one of the few positive stories) from that date. Probably had there been WP in 1948, a story about Pearl Harbor would have been given similar treatment. However, I think WPers are sufficiently irreverent that if we are given a 9/11 article every year, at some point (I can't predict when), we will either start voting opposes or Raul will throw in a little variety.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

4/5 nominees have disputed points

What is the point of the 60-day template if almost all the nominees still have points disputed? Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Augustus, John Bull, and Jena Six had taken advantage of the template. I will say that now we seem to be more aggressive in questioning points claimed on the template, I think that is a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Attaboy Wehwalt! You are doing a jolly good job of opposing the points. If anyone dares to be creative, we can count on you to curb the damn creativity. By the way, you did find a common ground between Anekantavada and Huldrych Zwingli and Conatus, but failed to find any common ground between the Jain principle of Anekantavada and the Jain festival Paryushana. So utlimately, the only Jain FA failed to make it to the main page. Talking of points, in the spirit of Anekantavada (if you have read the article, I am sure you will understand the spirit) I do understand your point. Thanks. --Anish (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, big words. Why not be a plain Jain?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I understand there are other Jain observances coming up. Put it back on the template and nominate it!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...it is scheduled for 19th.--Anish (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Queries

User:SandyGeorgia has told me that ~1/3 of featured articles on the main page go through here, the rest are choosen by Raul654 somehow; does this mean that a successful candidate comes off this nomination chart every ~3 days? Does anyone know about how that goes? I've been told the author/nominator sometimes contributes the blurb? Is this proactively or reactively (i.e. would Raul654 show up at my talk saying "Write a blurb for this article!" or do I show up at his saying "Please make this a main page feature. Here is blurb:" or some third option? Is this the best way to try and put a featured article onto the main page - it seems that unless you've got a good anniversary, or a core topic, you're probably hosed. WilyD 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I said a quarter to a third; I stopped tracking the stats a few weeks ago, so I no longer have the exact number. You inquired if this page was only used to schedule five slots per month; it's not, because Raul schedules more than once per month, so the proportion is higher, unless a requestor gets a slot on disputed points and then hogs the slot for five weeks, which is why I've proposed we lower the percentage threshold for other editors being able to dislodge disputed requests. They are the limiting factor in community input here. Raul almost always writes the blurbs himself, but he may use suggestions here. I only know of one case when he specifically asked for ideas (April Fools); normally he handles the blurbs. I have long argued that there is too much emphasis placed here on date anniversaries, yet we have proposals (see above) to strengthen the importance of dates and remove the notability point. It's a mystery to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy - I meant no offense by saying ~1/3; as an astronomer 1/3 = 1/4 as far as I'm concerned anyhow. If I understand correctly, one can either try to ferry a featured article through this page or hope that Raul654 sees it and likes it, and thus have it presented on the main page. Am I correct in my understanding? I don't mean to offer comment on the validity or appropriateness of the point system in use here, just that if you can't fit an article into it well, you're likely to have no other routes. WilyD 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken; I just didn't want to appear to overstate the statistic. There are over 1,000 pages waiting to appear on the mainpage and about 400 waiting longer than a year. Yes, those are pretty much the options. We do need more and sustained input to help make this page better reflect community input. If people only cycle through here when they want an article on the mainpage, and only think of their own interests, the page won't likely be the best it can be at reflecting community input and goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks in that regard. Can I ask if there's some "typical value" of points one usually has to get over the hump?

It is perhaps odd that "high profile" things like TFA and TDYK are often pressed for manpower, while AfDs routinely close early. How to address this, I don't know (and I'd probably want to press it so that more than 5% of IFDs got comments ;) ) WilyD 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on rough experience (and with a few exceptions), I would say three points is a minumum, four points will almost always keep a slot, and five points guarantees a slot unless there is heavy objection (can't think of a case where there has been). More slots would open up if we could move off the disputed or poorly supported requests, which is why I proposed lowering the threshold from 75% to 50%. We have seen disputed requests keep a slot for a very long time, preventing others from entering a request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we'd spend a little time coming up with a dispute resolution procedure, then we would not need to "move off the disputed" requests, since they would no longer be disputed. I'm unclear what your problem is with "disputed requests", since there is no procedure for resolving them, their nominators can hardly be blamed for adhering to their positions and hoping for some way of disputing them. I think everyone would accept any fair procedure. Why not just vote on disputes? If majority voting is good enough to vote off candidates, it should be good enough for point adjustments.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We did spend some time coming up with a dispute resolution procedure for voting on candidates; and we have many times over the last few months. Someone opposes every proposal. It's back to the old, if you've got a slot, you can keep the slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(response moved to own section, below)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for expedited voting on point disputes

I propose that if no objection is laid to the number of points of a TFA candidate within 48 hours of posting on the project page, then it is accepted as definitive, except for an objection based on similarity to a subsequent scheduling by Raul. If there is an objection, there is 48 hours to vote up or down on the objection, a tie going to uphold the number of points proposed by the nominator, with the nominator and the objector deemed to vote opposite to each other, and having no need to restate their positions. To be effective September 2630 at 00:00 and any existing article point totals can be objected to for 48 hours, and then voted upon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Why the move from Sept 30 to Sept 26?

2) Doesn't solve the issue of some opposing the points, some supporting, so won't solve the problem.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

September 30 is fine. If some support, and some oppose, it is majority rules, tie goes to the higher point value. If we can have effectively voting on whether or not to have an article remain on the nominations page, then why can't we have voting on what point value should govern? This may or may not eliminate the need for your proposal, Sandy, but it is at least worth a shot. Like I said, I think people will accept a fair process.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So, while rejecting "voting" overall to move requests, you accept "voting" on one aspect? Adds "creep" without solving the big picture, of how to make way for more requests by moving aside those that have little support (and 50% oppose is quite high). The fundamental flaw on the page is that an editor who gets a slot, keeps a slot: against the intent, and we need to be able to make way for more requests by removing those that don't garner support overall, not just on disputed points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, it is not a substitute proposal. Both proposals can coexist.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my concern: then we really have instruction creep. I suggest one broad proposal (that covers it all, and is a point already accounted for in our instructions, only requiring we change the number) rather than the introduction of a whole 'nother issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a paralyzed page because we can't figure out how to resolve point disputes, so no one knows which is the next to go. I'd rather have a little instruction creep.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The page isn't paralyzed (there are low-pointers that haven't been replaced for days and there are many higher pointers out there that could be added): we have a page whose instructions are already complex, and editors don't care to weigh in because the threshold before their opinion even counts is too high, giving them no incentive to participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, let me think about it, as I've said. Anyone else who would care to weigh in, I'd love to hear.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice HMS Royal Oak (08) sitting there with two or three points, ripe for the picking, and no even weighing in ... I think we've lost our target market. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. And with three openings likely to develop in the next week plus, and nothing but minnows in the near future on the template. I hear the sounds of crickets as the tumbleweeds roll by.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Look on the bright side; this page was in revolt a couple of months ago :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Against whom?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note (if anyone complains the page doesn't work), there are two five-pointers in the template that could be on the page right now (I added them both to the template), and I know of half a dozen more. None of those editors are banging at the door; they could have a slot right now if they wanted it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is disappointing to hear an article you spent a great deal of time on described as a minnow. — BillC ^talk 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry; I had no desire to offend. I was referring to articles in the template (above on this talk page), not Royal Oak, which is not in the template, but on the project page. I meant that the articles listed in the template for upcoming dates had relatively low numbers of points.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease and polio

Alzheimer's disease should get 2 points not 4, since polio appeared in main less than a month. If two film articles would be considered similar then articles on diseases are also. Why can't we come to a consensus on that? Halgin (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and a rule is a rule. That being said, the article is popular. However, if we reduced it to two, I doubt anyone is going to remove it in the few remaining days left.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference to one month was off by a day; if you want to be literal about one day, remove it; it would certainly end up on Raul's talk page as the silliest thing ever done on this page. Thirty days vs. twenty-nine? Classic example of why IAR exists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a resolution on Alzheimer's disease is similar to polio when, Wehwalt, the only one to objected to the points deducted on the page changed his mind. Sandy, if you agreed with his objection, why didn’t you say so before he changed his mind? I thought you wanted it revolved. Halgin (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you? AZ has broad support to IAR, since the difference is one day. I'm not sure what you're saying about Wehwalt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It has broad support, but you are the currently only one that says it is a 4 point article. The rule says deduct 2 points if a similar article was recently featured on the main page within one month of requested date. For example, two film articles would be considered similar. Therefore 2 diseases are similar. Polio was on the main page August 22. Alzheimer' is requested for September 21. I support the article, but the rules should be applied fairly to all articles. It should stay up because the community wants it, not because the rule is selectively applied. Halgin (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Applying the rules fairly on a Wiki (WP:IAR) would mean we wouldn't be literal about a one-day difference on 30 days. Can you name any single process on Wiki that works on hard and fast, literal numbers? More importantly, you deleted the disputed points from AZ, but left the disputed points on three other articles, so if you want to be "fair", you would have to remove all of the disputed points on the three other articles, and AZ still wouldn't be the next article to be removed. AZ has the greatest support on the page and the strongest point rationale, hence the weakest rationale for removal, as your edit would have led to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1998 Pacific hurricane season

I think this, newly added to the template, is a three pointer. It will have been just over two months since Hurricane Gloria so it neither gains nor loses on similarity grounds (Atlantic, Pacific, and cyclones, and their seasons, are all similar). It gets one point as claimed for ten year anniversary and one year since promotion, totaling three points. I don't see that it gets a notable topic point as claimed, since a twelve year old might use WP to research hurricanes, but not the 1998 Pacific hurricane season. Total three points.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You said three, but unless my eyes are fooling me, I only see mention of two points. Are you going to make me go explore the pending template to see what the three points are?  ;-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I goofed! Two points for ten year anniversary, one point for promoted a year plus ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So the disputed point is notability? No, a particular hurricane season doesn't get that point IMO; it if were hurricanes or topical cyclones or typhoons in general, yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, but ten-year ann is two points, so it is three points total ... you confused yourself! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't take much to confuse me. Anyway, we're in agreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to 3 in the template. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just add it to the requests page? There's an opening now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Sandy, do you really want an article possibly hanging onto a slot for almost five weeks?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but I do want an editor that I reverted yesterday to know the rules :-) I don't expect a three-pointer will last, but they are still entitled to add it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Im the reverted editor, I probably should have inspected the 5 request rule first. I have decided not to put it on this early maybe if the slots still open in a few weeks. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

question

It's the first time I come around these pages. I'd like to nominate the Group article for the main page. The date is irrelevant to me. I think it gets 4 points (Contributor history: 1 (I haven't had a FA yet)), Diversity: 1 (extremely few math FA). Main page representation: 2 (I guess), because there are no similar FA articles whatsoever (from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics#Featured_articles)). To be honest, I don't quite understand the mechanism for the main page, though. What should I do to propose it for main page? Can I simply replace Silent Hill 4: The Room nomination (for Sep 30)? Thanks for the help, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about main page representation, but you can probably replace it on the other points anyway. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we had mathematician Emmy Noether on September 4, and a fair amount of her work, according to her article, was with groups. I don't think that a claim for main page representation points would be upheld, because of that. In fact, were it nominated for a date before Oct 4, it would be a zero pointer. So I would think through October 4, zero, after October 4, two points. And by the way, Noether is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics#Featured_articles so similarity is pretty clear. If nominated for October 4 or after, though, Group would still beat the video game.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted back to having Silent Hill as the fifth article. U2 is clearly a minus one point article at present; Group is zero points until we've gone 30 days since the mathematician (and may have to compete with the Wright stuff for its place). According to the rules, neither could have replaced Silent Hill. Suggest the Group nominator consider, if he/she wants another math article so soon (and as Sandy points out, there are only three left) a date after October 4.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that move; it got kinda messy for a while there, but I think this page is actually maturing to where it handles this type of situation better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked all to be good faith. The nominator of U2 didn't realize there had been a point deduction, then the nominator of group didn't realize there had been a recent math article. We're going to have three vacancies at almost any time now, since Raul has to schedule in the next 29 hours and at least one spot will open up, and possibly as many as three. There shouldn't need to be any Rush. I mean, U2.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Wheatley

I've removed TonyTheTiger's Tyrone Wheatley nomination. The instructions ask that we only nominate one article at a time and Tony still has Augustus on the page. Without prejudice to the nomination, it's premature and Tony's going to have to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Days, One Worried User

Users, I usually don't get freaked out but we need a article for 9/21/08 and 9/22/08! EvilWendyMan (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

September 21 is already scheduled. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul has never, ever failed to schedule the TFA on time; nothing to worry about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a request

I'd like to nominate Degrassi: The Next Generation for October 5, which is the date season 8 premieres on Canadian TV. I think it would get at least 3 points, but I'm not really sure. Date relevance would be 1 point, my first nomination would be another, and I don't think a TV series has been featured in the last three months, so that would be the third point.

If I nominated, do I just remove the Silent Hill nomination and add this? What about the bit in the green box? Am I supposed to write that? Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The last TV-related article was The Quatermass Experiment on July 18, which is less than 3 months before October 5, so I think it's only 2 points. I suppose that the "first come first served" principle means that I don't have any say about this, but I'd sort of been planning to nominate Doctor Who missing episodes for November 23, which will be the 45th anniversary of the first broadcast of Doctor Who. That would be 4 points if there hasn't been another TV-related article since then, but if Degrassi goes up it'll be 0, which would be a disappointment.3 points. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't decided on whether I want to or not yet, so don't worry too much. Real life stresses and my internet access isn't wonderful right now either, and I don't know if I could deal with it being slashed to pieces for 24 hours! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My maths was off. Doctor Who missing episodes only loses 1 potential point if Degrassi goes up on Oct. 3. I won't stand in the way, then. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry too much about the blurb as Raul usually writes them himself anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You could at least put in in the queue now and someone else might take care of it. Nergaal (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending template

The pending template is getting clogged up again; do we really want to include zero and one-pointers there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 0 pointers shouldn't be in the template or on the main request page and should be removed on sight. But that is me. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the repeated efforts to put U2 in, let's wait a few days until Raul schedules the 25th.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay (my concern is that we're eventually going to have 60 articles in there, and it will become unusable). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little worried that the pending template is inadvertently causing issues. There are a lot of articles in there that could be placed on the main request page. That tells me that either 1) people don't realize that they have to come back to move the article again or 2) no one is willing to replace a low-point article. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure those are the reasons. A number of the template entries are coming from a very few editors (mostly Halgin and Sandy) who I imagine are putting them in the template to provoke discussion and inspire people to give putting them on the project page a try. However, a lot of the time, they don't get moved. I'm not even sure if the principal editors are aware that the articles are in the template. If you are going to do it right, having a TFA is a fair amount of work. I spent the better part of Saturday at or near the computer, and reverted vandalism an awful lot of times. Maybe a note asking people not to add to the template unless they really intend to contend for the project page?

About half the nominees, by my count, are coming in without ever having been on the template. I don't know the reason, whether they don't know about the template or don't want to use it, or want to surprise us!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec, now mostly redundant) Could be, hard to tell (we did add the line to the main page about the need to return); if we delete the pending template, will we see instability on the main page? Also, several of the pending requests were put there by me, back when we were experimenting with the notion of advance notice; I have no indication the original editors even want the articles requested. I was experimenting with our proposals. What is clear, in relation to the turmoil that prevailed on this page several months ago, is that slots are there for the asking, and editors aren't taking them, so the criticism that Raul wasn't giving input to the community should be resolved. At least we now have a fairly stable and working page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I had added 2 in the last month, that same number as Wehwalt. I added one last month that someone else put on the talk page, they inspire me put it on the request page. (Halgin (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

As I suggested a while back, maybe we should sign when we add, that way I wouldn't make silly mistakes like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I added Wright, Khan and Ramblin' Wreck; to my knowledge, none of the original editors are aware. To me, they indicate that there are high point, worthy articles that could get a slot if they showed up, but they don't. I know of a half dozen others that are higher than what's on the page now, point being that if worthy articles really wanted a slot, they could get one, no attachment on my part to any of those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Undecipherable

Three of the five requests currently on the page haven't explained their point tallies; how are we to opine, oppose and support if we have to go back and do the calculations on each one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Help to nominate Tulip mania

I'd like to nominate Tulip mania for the main page at the earliest reasonable date. This page seems to focus exclusively on specific dates and anniverseries, but the rules don't seem to require it (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The reason for the earliest reasonable date is that the tulip mania is viewed as a classic example of financial turmoil, and we seem to have a lot of finaicial turmoil going on right now. Also, business articles and especially finance articles are grossly under-represented in FA's and on the main page (I think the closest article on the main page this year was on a business school). Finally (and modestly) I think it's a great article!

By the point system:

• Date relevant to topic – 0 Points
• Contributor History – 1 Point – No previous article on main page and Significant Contributor.
• Diversity – 1 Point – finance is grossly under-represented
• Main page representation – 2 Points – A similar article has not featured on the main page this year

4 points total

Smallbones (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had other articles requested even without date relevance. You would just need to pick a specific date to ask for. The only questiion I have on the points is Main Page Representation - would FairTax (July 14), count as a similar article? If it does, then you could wait until after October 14, and get 1 point for Main Page. Even if it only has 2 points, that is more than the September 30 entry, so you can remove Silent Hill and nominate this article for any date within the range. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wise to wait until then, which, by the by, is around the time most Americans start planting bulbs for next year!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the first time I've made a request, I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing (the rules might be a little more clear the second time around!). If anybody sees a mistake here, please revert or correct. I'll request Sept. 30 taking off Wheatly (see below). As far as similarity between FairTax and Tulip mania, I just don't see any at all. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I put in the short version? Smallbones (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd put in the first two paragraphs of the lede. I'd also use the "Augustus" print, which I think is recognizable and associated with Tulipmania.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed on next off

The proposal above (to allow for more "voting" input by lowering the 75% threshold) should eventually resolve this, but for now, we have a problem with the "next to be replaced".

Date	Article	Points	Comments
Oct 3	noitulovE	2 or 4	Anniversary (points disputed)
Oct 4	Tyrone Wheatley	0, 1, 2 or 3	U. Mich homecoming (points disputed)
Oct 15	USS New Jersey (BB-62)	2	Anniversary of museum opening

When two of the three have disputed points, we can't go strictly on points. Do we go on Support percentage? In that case, Tyrone Wheatley would be next off, as the others enjoy more support. A three- or four-pointer (see Tulip above) right now wouldn't know who to replace; we need consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection to noitulovE, which takes it out of the mix. I still think because it is advertising, but let it go. Yes, I think we should go by support percentage, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So which is next to go? I would like to make a nomination, but don't know which one to replace. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wheatley has the worst point claim, but your mileage may vary. Degrassi? I think that would be the only one you could replace; all others have at least two points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, the only voters on Wheately say the article has 0 points; only the nominator disagrees. Of course, there are only 2 voters so far. For the ad, there are multiple people who support each of the point values. I think Wheately should be next off. Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No disputes: that's purdy. Matthewedwards, you can replace the two-pointer if you have more than two points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports and all that

I think with the discussions about the USC team and CM Punk added to the template, we're going to have to come to some sort of a decision about how sports teams and athletes fit into the "similar articles rule".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these two are similar. I think similar is two things from the same sport although I am not really sure 2007 USC Trojans football team is even similar to Tyrone Wheatley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm just urging that we come up with a policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been going by same sport in the past?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No. No point was claimed for Yao Ming, for one. Given that there are probably at least thirty Olympic and/or popular team sports, I'm a bit concerned that "same sport" would be too broad (or narrow, you know what I mean).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw an idea out there, I would divide sports into individual athletes (competing primarily individually, as in, for example, athletics, bowling, racing), team athletes (that is, like a member of a team), teams, coaches/officials/executives, events, and miscellaneous. If two articles fell in the same division, or were from the same sport, they would be considered similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So you would say Don Bradman, Moe Berg and Yao Ming are similar to each other and to Tyrone Wheatley. No one made such a point when it was at WP:TFAR for a week or so. I do not think this is the prevailing opinion, but I understand your argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but I think it would be kinda silly to be able to say we could have an article a day on athletes for a month, and each one would be deemed dissimilar. Certainly, I doubt if Raul would permit that, but that would be the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For football they have never had an athlete on the main page who was mainly a football player. Tyrone Wheatley was the second American football bio to make FA. The first Jim Thorpe is only partly a football player. No one contested the points on Wheatley last month. If this got to be like discographies on FL and Hip hop discographies were trying to say they were different from Rock & Roll discographies when every month two or three of each is promoted that would be one thing. However, in this case American football bios are so rare on FA that they might as well be treated differently. If American football bios get so common that there is one at FAC at all times or something then the rules should be reinterpretted to keep them from dominating the main page. In this case Wheatley is truly a rare FA bio. You could make the case that his article does not belong on the main page because other athletes have been on the main page. That would be O.K. Keep in mind athletes are not like political leaders and heads of state where the really interesting ones will be at vital articles. They are almost never going to get those bonus points. I may propose him again for October 4 now that I know his birthday is not going to happen this year due to Edgar Allen Poe's 200th birthday being the same day. I will take my lumps if it gets shot down. It is not that big a deal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't have a specific rule just for American Football! My concern is that we seem to be getting a lot of sports articles in the template, each claiming the points for nothing similar in six months, and often with date connection point claims that seem a bit disputable. The two points for nothing similar within six months are supposed to be used rarely, but for sports it is becoming routine. My proposal would cut back on that a bit. Moe Berg was a Raul pick, by the way, and Yao and Bradman were special cases because it seemed important that they run on the days selected, no one either proposed adding or subtracting points (I imagine Bradman would have had eight points from your point of view!) It is only when this routine taking of two points is coming in that this becomes an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If sports are overrepresented at TFA then you may have a point. I think one sports bio article per month may be correct. I conceed that date connections to dates not properly mentioned in the article probably should be discouraged. If you were to go through Wikipedia:FA#Sport_and_recreation and separate bios by sport you would see that Wheatley is basically the only true American football player bio. If this were another cricketeer trying to get to the main page that would be different. I imagine that maybe a half dozen cricketeers have been on the main page by the current number at FA. If we were to get a bio from any other sport that does not have a bio representative I think they should be given some sort of priority. I don't think this is a special rule for American football.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about not letting Sports use the 3/6 month rule but say that if no prior sportsman from that sport (we can define around Jim Thorpe) has appeared, they get two bonus points, to encourage innovation? But then we're running into WP:CREEP again . . . jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are sports bios (FFA in italics)

American football: Jim Thorpe, Tyrone Wheatley

Baseball: Moe Berg, Steve Dalkowski, Art Houtteman, Sandy Koufax, Jimmy McAleer, Bob Meusel, Ted Radcliffe, J. R. Richard, Lee Smith (baseball)

Basketball: Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Yao Ming

Boxing: Simon Byrne, Michael Gomez, Susianna Kentikian

Chess: Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Paul Morphy

Cricket: Sid Barnes, Donald Bradman, Ian Chappell, Brian Close, Paul Collingwood, A. E. J. Collins, Ian Craig, Adam Gilchrist, Clem Hill, Archie Jackson, Ian Johnson (cricketer), Bart King, Charlie Macartney, Jack Marsh, Arthur Morris, Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), Kevin Pietersen, Harbhajan Singh, Don Tallon, Ernie Toshack, Marcus Trescothick, Harry Trott, Hugh Trumble

Ice Hockey: Eric Brewer (ice hockey), Martin Brodeur, Ray Emery, Wayne Gretzky, Dominik Hašek, Trevor Linden, Jacques Plante, Joe Sakic, Paul Stastny

Racing: Damon Hill, Alain Prost, Tom Pryce

Rugby: Karmichael Hunt, Waisale Serevi

Soccer: Duncan Edwards, Thierry Henry, Denis Law, Bobby Robson, Gilberto Silva

Tennis: Lottie Dod, Suzanne Lenglen

Wrestling: Shelton Benjamin, Bobby Eaton, CM Punk

Other: Fanny Blankers-Koen (athletics), Nellie Kim (Gymnastics), Cynna Kydd (netball), Ian Thorpe (swimming)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From the above CM Punk definitely deserves consideration regardless of other athlete bios. Wheatley is somewhat rare as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt also deserves consideration on November 17 (his 22nd birthday).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Punk may be eligiable for more points as an event he will probably be participating in, Cyber Sunday (2008), is scheduled to be held on that date. D.M.N. (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How many events does he participate in a year?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds, but there are only a handful of Pay Per View events a year (Cyber Sunday being one). Dahumorist (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, with the precedent being giving Yao Ming a date relation point for carrying the Chinese flag in the Opening Ceremony on the date of same, I'm not sure a pro wrestler gets such a point for participating in one of "hundreds" of events per year, simply because this is one of the "handful" per annum on Pay Per View.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Be more aware of errors in blurbs

The blurb written here for Augustus had an error which was carried on the main page for several hours;[10] we should be more aware of whether these blurbs are written by the original authors of the FA (who did the research and know the topic) or by someone else, so Raul doesn't inadvertently pick up errors inserted here. See the main page error reports and Talk:Augustus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, considering the embarrassment of having an error on the mainpage, maybe we should encourage requestors here to not submit a blurb if they weren't one of the original authors of the FA and/or don't know the topic and research thoroughly. I suppose Raul might assume that the blurb submitted here was written by one of the main contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it easier to check blurb accuracy against the article before it makes it to the Main Page? Beats adding yet another... encouragement to this page. I'm almost glad I've never had an article promoted to FA—I don't think I'd have the guts to make a Main Page request nowadays :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it was easier not to write it to begin with if you weren't one of the original researchers; for some reason, editors appearing here to make a request have the idea they must submit a blurb. I'm not sure that's the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference. If a nominator doesn't write a blurb, Raul will in good faith probably use part of the lede as the blurb. Either way, we have an error on the main page. It is just who gets the embarrassment.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll try to explain the difference; if a requestor who wasn't involved in the article research writes the blurb, an unnoticed or subtle error may be introduced. If the requestor doesn't write the blurb, Raul will write his own, based on the lead, and in this case, the error wouldn't have been introduced, as the error wasn't in the article. In other words, no blurb may be better than a blurb written by someone who wasn't actively involved in the article research. This error did not come from the article, or from the article lead: it appears to have come from the blurb here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Didn't realize that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't very clear :-) I meant to make two points: 1) we should tell requestors that if they weren't involved in the article research and writing, they don't have to write the blurb and possibly shouldn't, and 2) we should keep an eye on blurbs that aren't written by primary contributors. Editors who know the topic best will know if a subtle error was introduced, and since most blurbs here are written by the primary contributors, Raul might (not sure) assume that was the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I probably should have read more carefully. Well, the article that fits that category is Oct 18, where the principal editor isn't able to assist us. We should look at that closely.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to review that one closely, for Jeff; I know Bookkeeper came in to it late, so we should help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will take a close look sometime in the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't as tired as I thought, so I took a look at the article. I'm not happy with a couple of things in the blurb. I'll move this over to the Oct 18 discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Wehwalt; I thought I would get to it, but I have instead a situation on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I got busy and lost track: did you actually update the blurb or are you going to ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't yet, was going to give the nominator a chance, but it has been 24 hours, so I guess I should go ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the blurb, and made corresponding changes to the article, plus a few other changes I felt were needed, removal of unsupported material and replacement from a statement on the web site, that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway Jena Six

Does pending Natalee Holloway lose it 2 points for nothing similar in 6 months, since Jena Six was on September 20? Both are similar in that they are criminal cases. Halgin (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holloway case is not known to be a criminal case. No one has been charged. It is a disappearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And if it is a criminal case, she would be a victim, where as the Jena Six are perpetrators. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes; just as Emmy Noether and Group (mathematics) were similar, and from our small pool of math articles, Jena Six and Natalee Holloway are similar articles from our small pool or remaining law cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Law case? No cases have been brought in the Holloway investigation, other than a few civil cases, mostly dismissed, which receive little play in the article. I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. Law case? What law case?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm befuddled by this one: can someone lay out a cogent argument for describing these two articles as similar? If Jon Benet Ramsey or Judge Crater had been up, I'd see the argument, but Jena Six doesn't have any similarities that I can detect.Kww (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious: if the article doesn't involve police, arrests, court proceedings, legal and criminal systems, then where do you see this article belonging at WP:FA? If you want to move it to Sport and recreation (the shark aspect) or Politics (US-Aruba relations) or Media (Missing White Girl Syndrome), it will lose the point on underrepresented topics (I suppose you could go for Religion, Cult of Aruban Society, closes ranks around its own after tourists are fed to the sharks?). That Aruban police, authorities and courts couldn't, didn't or wouldn't deal with the crime doesn't make it less of a police/legal situation. I wouldn't advertise that these issues receive little play in the article, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm, Sandy, that made me laugh :) A better phrase to use might be "criminal investigation" or "police investigation". Both articles describe an alleged crime, the investigation into that crime, and the huge media response to the investigation. The results of the investigation differed, but the bare bones of the topics are very similar. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm? I chopped about 500 words before I posted :-) Thanks for stating it more clearly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I thought the instructions for similarity stated that two articles within the same category were not necessarily similar. Judging from opinions posted here, there seems to be a considerable difference in opinion as to whether they are in fact similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a case of too few buckets. I wouldn't have considered Emmy Noether (a biography) and Group (mathematics) (a theoretical mathematical explanation) to be particularly related either. You can't get too precise, or you run the risk of people claiming that role-playing video games are different from first-person shooters, but I think this is an example of going a bit too far the other direction.

As for the rest of your response, Sandy, cases go wrong in your legal system just as they do in ours. No one has found out what happened to Jon Benet Ramsey yet, and there they even had the advantage of an actual body and crime scene to run forensic tests on.Kww (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they are quite similar (for the reasons explained by Karanacas). The distinction we made was to allow for differences in broad groups at Media, for example. I again implore you all to consider what a disservice we do by running this article on Holloway's birthday, rather than any other date or a date related to the crime, as this aricle is not a bio and is not a full accounting of her life. We have an ethical and moral obligation to think of surviving relatives when we put up an article on her birthday that leaves out everything about her and reduces her life to one week of partying, while exploring even her mother's divorce. Our notability policies failed here to respect more important concerns as expressed in some of the BLP wording. I will oppose this article on her birthday unless it becomes a proper bio of the rest of her life; I won't oppose it on another date. We're not here to debate the Ramsey vs. the Holloway case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble Sandy, but your supposed "ethical and moral obligation" is not based in reality. Every single person I've spoken to who knows Holloway and her family are impressed with the article and were thrilled when I told them it may eventually be on the main page (yes, even on her birthday). Nobody has ever voiced any objection to the content of the article or the fact that it "reduces her life to one week of partying, while exploring even her mother's divorce" (a point I disagree with). I don't know where your objection is coming from, but it's not one shared by the family and friends of Natalee Holloway. They want to keep her memory alive and in people's minds. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, it was our plan to nominate for the 21st but say that we have no objection to it being run another date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What would we do about the fact that (I think ?) we objected when some other article did that (can't remember the case?); seems like a reasonable compromise, but I seem to recall we didn't allow that kind of flexibility in the past (which I'm all in favor of). Maybe I'm thinking of Planet and Dwarf planet, where I thought we should have taken the date but given Raul the choice of which article? This kind of flexibility is exactly what we should be doing, IMO. I just really don't want her family to have to read this article on her birthday since it's not really about her life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one was four points and the other two points, as I recall, which was the objection, that it was sliding around the five article rule. Raul can exercise his discretion to run the article early if he is minded to. If we nominated it, and he ran it, say, on October 12, well, that would be that. Nomination vacated, slot opened. That's that. If he didn't, we'd wait to see if he took it for the 21st. There is precedent--the first time Augustus was tried, the nominator said he was OK with any date in August, though he proposed a specific date, I think the 23rd.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new language on project page regarding expectations

I would suggest we add the following language to the paragagraphs on the top of the project page (right under where it talks about the template).

"An article which becomes a TFA often has many edits made to it during its 24 hours on the Main Page. If you add a request to this page, it is expected that you, or another editor with knowledge of the subject matter of the article, will check the article often during that time to evaluate (and, if necessary amend or reverse) edits and answer talk page inquiries."

I am not suggesting adding this as a requirement, but rather as aspirational language in the hope that more editors will do this. It is nice to see an article one has worked hard on make it to TFA, but there are obligations, too, if you are to do right by WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in favor of that, this page is already suffering from CREEP, and that's not really part of this page. In fact, I'm not even sure it's true. Raul doesn't worry about who's going to watch other pages when he schedules them, and quite often, the main editors are no longer even around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Points disputes on "Mainpage representation" (similar)

Five of the current five nominations have disputed points, all of them around the "Mainpage representation" (similar) definition.

This situation renders the page unuseful; it puts us back to where we used to be, that the article that gets here first, stays here, even with points disputed, since a new requestor doesn't know which article can be replaced next. Right now, Augustus is "safe", but a new requestor would not know which article to replace next. I suggest that Alzheimer's is a clearcut case, because applying the definition to within a difference of one-day would be an overly strict application of the "rules" and is a clear-cut case of the benefit of IAR, and it has strong support. So, two of the five seem "safe".

Neither of the remaining three articles has strong support, so a new requestor would not know which to replace next. This is an edit war waiting to happen. A 4-pointer appearing as a new request has to decide which of the remaining three to kick off the island, and the page provides little guidance.

Since most of the disputes center around "Similar", I suggest we might focus on tightening the definition there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Current wording

• A similar article has not been featured on the main page:²
  • Within three months of requested date: 1 point
  • Within six months of requested date: 2 points
• Deduct points if a similar article was recently featured on the main page:
  • Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points
  • Within one month of requested date: –2 points

² Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: 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. Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, atom and Noble gas.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "similar" needs to be defined more closely. I was considering a possible nomination and had little idea what a "similar" article would constitute. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just ran through again, and found that I wasn't fully correct above; we do have a means of determining the next off, and in fact, we have a candidate:

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

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for removals

I've brought this up before, and I continue to think it makes the most sense for all of the situations this page has faced. One of the goals here was to give the community more input in choosing TFA candidates to put before Raul. One of the past obstacles was that when a request got a spot, it was impossible to remove it. I don't believe the solution lies in tightening definitions on items that will be subject to editor opinion and consensus anyway. I believe instead that the solution is to give editors more input in determining that consensus, by making it easier to remove iffy requests.

Current wording

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

We have never, or almost never (the memory fails) had occasion to use this clause. 75% oppose would be overwhelming; why is the bar set so high?

Replaced by subsequent Proposal 2, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

If a requested article has over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator as support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it will be removed regardless of its point value.

Even 50% is almost never met; this is not an extreme threshold. Lowering from 75 to 50 will give the community greater input into the requests, and allow us to use editor opinion (rather than strict definition) to apply notions like "similar" and to IAR in cases like Alzheimer's being off by one day. We have similarly had difficulty in coming to a definition on "notable"; rather than tightening definitions, this proposal just gives more weight to the community in deciding when something is "similar" or "notable", while allowing for potentially more turnover and greater access to the page for more articles (although I suspect the 50% will rarely be reached, just as the 75% is almost never reached). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable, Sandy, but given the continued low traffic on these pages, I'd like to see a minimum number of opposes. Say, five or six. And instead of "over 50% oppose", I would say "at least 60% oppose". It shouldn't make much practical difference. Besides, I wasn't blind to the fact that last month Raul declined to use both William IV and Augustus, which had high oppose percentages. Although I am somewhat unclear as how lowering the percentage will allow the community to use the tools you mention in a more efficient fashion.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I missed in the edit conflicts and failed to answer. I think/hope it will stimulate more participation. I suspect there is some resignation, feeling from editors that they can't get on the page unless they happen to be here when the slot opens. And, it gives us a reason to weigh in on our interpretation of the points; as it is now, we're stalled in these point disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment TFAR should have a director or some administrators that make a final determination on disputed points within 48 hours of posting a nominee.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the objectives is to allow the community to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How well is this objective succeeding since everything continues to have disputed points.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it will be removed regardless of its point value.

I still think 50% is good; how's this? In addition to Raul not using those that have a high Oppose percentage, our goal is to get them moved to give other requestors an opportunity to get on the page, so the slot isn't missed (as they were last month, as you mentioned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm fine with that, assuming we can agree on an effective date.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  We're almost at mid-month now; how about Sept 30 (and we do our usual announcement on the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, to be implemented on September 30, with a link announcing the proposal placed on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don’t see how this proposal deals with the points disputes on similar article. However, it should be debated under it own section. The note should be added to the page that the community is debating this change. Halgin (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll add it; I was waiting for feedback. It helps solve point disputes by giving the community more ability to vote on them and remove them from the page when there is disagreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

  I've stricken my support and am taking a neutral stance on the proposal. I'm concerned about the possible use of meatpuppets to artificially inflate oppose percentages and am concerned that fifty percent makes that too easy. I'll give it some thought over the next few days before deciding which way to come down.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  Strangest reasoning I ever saw; you oppose don't support because someone might violate Wiki policies? What if we did that throughout Wiki? Do you want to oppose that consensus is part of FAC or AfD or RfA because people might violate policy? I suppose this page may never improve because someone's always got something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  I do have a number of concerns. I don't want to get into an argument. I just want to give it some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  After consideration, I've decided to reinstate my support for Sandy's proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No opposition, putting this one in now since we're an hour from the 30th and it won't affect any current requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, though a bit concerned that two supports and the rest of the community silent becoming consensus may be a precedent we'll regret.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

points question

I was going to nominate Ununoctium sometimes within the next days but I would rather not replace anything. Still, I do have a question about points: +1 for date relevance (publishing of discovery), and +1 for underrepresented at wp:FA. I believe the last similar article was noble gas on August 18 so it shouldn't receive any penalties. What about notability? I believe an element is notable enough, but would it fall under the +1 pts criteria? Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do 12-year-olds study the periodic table? If so, I suppose that ununoctium could get a point for notability, even though I suspect they're more likely to do reports on more common elements like oxygen and carbon.

But Akhtar Hameed Khan is up for the same date, with a 5-point claim. What do we do if the nominator doesn't move it to the main page? Do we just let it go? Can Nergaal get ununoctium for that day even though Akhtar Hameed Khan gets more points? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I added that article to the template when we were experimenting with ways to use the template; I don't even know who the original editor is or if s/he plans to nominate. If s/he does, it can replace Ununoctium (which, since I've never heard of, I don't imagine is studied by 5th graders), but I rather imagine we would have heard from that person by now if they wanted to request the TFA. Nonetheless, it doesn't look like a two-pointer has much chance on the page right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Anyway, I took the liberty of contacting Islescape (talk · contribs), the primary author of Akhtar Hameed Khan, to see if he's interested in putting it up for nomination, mainly because I thought it was an interesting topic. Not that unonoctium isn't, mind you — it's just that Khan potentially gets more points. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, you should write to every single editor of the articles in the templates. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? I only added one other; the rest were added by the main editors, and they know they added them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the other article you added, Sandy? Unless it's something with a really low point count, I'll contact its primary author as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No need; I've decided to replace and put something else up myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I should be grateful to Josiah Rowe for the message. I would really like to nomiate AHK for the 9th if it qualifies. In fact I wanted to put it up for his Birth Anniversary on 15th July! especially due to its relevence to the issues of international development, but got confused with the nomination procedures. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers --IslesCape^Talk 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have posted it in place of an article tagged 'Next to be replaced'. Hope I did it right. --IslesCape^Talk 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Good job! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed points

Looking at the Pending template, the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article (which I nominated), appears to have two disputed points. Unfortunately, the person that put noted it in the template (that they dispute it) hasn't said why. What happens in this situation? D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You discuss it here so that you don't have to go through the effort of putting it on the request page if your points were wrong. What are the points you are claiming? Put them here for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both the points which come up to the total 3 points are disputed:

• 1 pt date relevant - the date requested is the date of the final race of the 2008 Formula One season, hence why I feel the date is relevant on the whole.
• 2 pts nothing similar in 6 months - no articles under the WP:MOTOR or children projects have been on the mainpage for over six months.

I can sort of see why the relevancy could be questioned - not sure about the other one. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I questioned it as follows: The race was number 15 of a 17 race season, the relevance to the final day of the F1 season is not enough. It's like asking for points for the Kentucky Derby on Breeder's Cup day. If you nominated it for the anniversary of the race, Oct 22, I'd be OK on the one point. As for the nothing similar in six months, this is a sports article. We've had a fair number of those, and we currently have two on the template. It is kinda odd to say "nothing similar in six months" for what may be the third sports article in 16 days. Now, I've proposed splitting up sports for similarity purposes into athletes, non athlete personnel, events, objects (anything from a tee to Yankee Stadium) and teams, but I haven't gotten any support there. All the same, that is an awfully lot of sports in a short period of time. By my count zero points, and if Stoke City and/or CM Punk actually run, my thought is that there may be points lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've moved the request to October 22nd. I don't really see point 2 as a concern, this is a event not a team/person like Stoke and Punk. D.M.N. (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Until we come up with a way to divide up sports for purposes of similarity, sports is sports, and probably if we have too many sports articles (however diverse within sports) within a short period of time, there will be complaints. However, with Punk gone, I don't think two sports articles in a month is excessive. It is about what Raul has been running over the course of the year.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Discouraging early nominations?

I've noticed that a few users have commented on very early nominations that tend to take up slots for a very long time. Are there any ideas about discouraging the nominators in these cases since a good portion of them could nominate it two weeks later instead? I would think that requiring a threshold for supports after say a week after publishing if there are still several weeks left until the actual date? Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid instruction creep, the easiest way to discourage way early nominations is to oppose them. We don't need any more instruction additions; there are already complaints about CREEP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the time a request takes up a slot. The return to the 30 day from the date of request that was used until July, [[11]] would solve the problem without instruction creep. The return of the rule was talk about however, a proposal to use the point systems to address the issue was reviewed but not accepted instead[[12]]. Halgin (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about subtracting a point from the scheme until ?15? (or perhaps another number) days before due. For example, if a submitted article has 3 points but it still has say 4 weeks until the date, then it can be replaced by another 3-pointer within the next 15 days. However, the original article that got "temporary" unnominated/replaced would be able to be nominated again for the full 3 points once it got within the 15 days mark. Opinions? Nergaal (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not just reduce the maximum number of days ahead to 15? Same effect, without the extra rules baggage. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because that has been discussed about a gazillion times in archives, and Raul has clearly said five requests for the next 30 days. He didn't ask for much: he did ask for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that it should be thirty days, I'm simply saying that all of these proposals seem to me to be more roundabout ways of proposing reducing the limit. If that's what Nergaal, Wehwalt, et al are after, I'd rather that they just ask for that directly than propose additional rules that would amount to the same thing. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I Oppose any more instruction creep or changes; we reduced the voting threshhold to 50% to give more voice to editors; if articles are put up too soon, you can oppose them and they can come back later. We don't need more instructions; the page already scares people off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I agree, opposing the nomination is the appropriate way to handle it. In my view, the only good reason for a nomination over three weeks away is if there is close point competition for the particular day and you are trying to lock out another article for the same day with equal point value. Otherwise, you are just tying up a slot, as we can evaluate and vote in a week, tops. Incidently, would it be worthwhile asking Raul if he considers the 30 day rule set in stone or if it would be OK if we considered lowering it to, say, 20?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about date accuracy

I have a newly promoted article that is approaching the 200th anniversary of it's opening. I didn't even realise this until it was highlighted by one of the article's sources (an author), the trouble is that the date is only November 1808 - there is no day mentioned. Would this still qualify for points? I have other anniversaries I was considering but a 200 year anniversary doesn't come often... Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if the known anniversary is "November 1808", then any date in November 2008 could be treated as the bicentennial, as far as points are concerned. There's no source that gives a specific date? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The only source is mention of a report from June 1808 that says the canal in it's entirety would be complete by Nov 1808. There's no record of any actual opening day. Actually, it could have been December, or October - but everyone presumes November since there were no delays known. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda iffy, since we don't know the canal was opened in November, with time money, they could have opened early. On the other hand, a bicentennial is a bicentennial. Can you tell us the article name so we can look at it informally?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal, thanks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Might have been before the era of big production openings, who knows? They might just have started operating it as each segment was completed, like they did with the railroads. You might want to rewrite to stress the date in the lede. I'm not sure. I don't think it gets the points by the rule, because no particular date is known to be of relevance, but by common sense a bicentennial is significant and might be worth bending a point or six. Is there going to be any sort of commemoration by any society or municipality? That would be a good date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only commemoration really is that the first stage of restoration has been completed in the bicentennial year (coincidentally the stretch restored by 2008 was the same stretch that completed the canal in 1808). The canal was opened in stages, boats were using it 11 years before it was complete. I doubt there will be any further commemoration as its pretty much a long forgotten canal (albeit for the restoration). Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Similar" sports articles?

So, we've got Tyrone Wheatley on the main page today. Does this affect the points for History of Stoke City F.C. or not? Some editors have suggested that different sport = different subject, but I think that's problematic — there are so many different sports that we could theoretically have 10 sports articles on the front page per month, without repeating a sport. Wehwalt made a suggestion about dividing sports into "athletes", "other people" (coaches, owners, et. al.), "teams", "events" and "other" (including stadiums and the like). That seems more practical than making distinctions between sports. But, as Wehwalt notes on the request page, there isn't a consensus on this yet. So let's try to find one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be break it down too much, however I do feel that it needs to be split a little. Coaches could also fall into past athletes category. I think we should have three divisions: Sportspeople, Sporting events and Sporting teams +related articles i.e. history. At the moment if we were to go with that Wheatley would fall under "Sportspeople", 1995 Pacific GP would fall under "Sporting events" and the Stoke one would fall under "Sporting teams/related" articles. D.M.N. (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many flaws with this suggestion, but what if we use the ~185 subcategories at WP:GA, e.g. architecture, art, artists and architects, museums and galleries for the similar article points? –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As you suggest, lots of flaws there. Using the subdivisions under "sports and recreation", we could have an article on American football one day and one on American college football the next. (Not that Raul would do that, but you see the point.)

D.M.N.'s suggestion seems simple and logical to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N's suggestion doesn't include a lot of things, like venues, equipment, trophies, sports medicine, that kinda thing. It seems crafted to give the three articles in question their own categories. Let me propose an alternative:

Given that Raul generally schedules two sports articles in a month, it might behoove us to have two sports categories. Individuals, and everything else. I've been giving this a lot of thought. Since Raul generally mixes it up by not having two articles on individuals in a month, but rather a team or trophy or event article, I'm inclined to put teams under everything else. We could exempt current articles on the page. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that division would work. Also, as a practical matter it would probably be good to ensure that different sports are represented, although I'm not sure how to word that. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't tie ourselves to saying that "if it's a person, it's not similar to an event" — because otherwise we might get someone arguing that by our rules, 1926 World Series isn't "similar" to Art Houtteman. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can handle that by judicious oppose votes. But we could add that two articles relating to the same sport are per se similar. I had to click to figure out who Houtteman was.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So did I — I had to do a bit of rooting around at WP:FA to find two articles from the same sport that hadn't yet been featured. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rule tweak proposal

If 10 years is 2 points and 50 years is four points, I propose that 25 years be three points.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Question Are 25th anniversaries widely regarded?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More than 10th, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, ten covers multiples of ten as well, so this would only be effective for odd multiples of 25. Is there some article in particular that you are looking at for this?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand 10 covers 20 or 40, but 50 covers itself. I have no particular article, I am just new to the process and offering my suggestion that multiples of 25 that are not multiples of 50 have a number. I think a 25th or 75th anniversary is a bigger deal than a 20th or 70th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think we have too many rules and should be working on simplifying before we add more stuff. Oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand it is fashionable to oppose anything I say even if you can not make a sensible argument, but jeez can't you do better than that. This is not even a new rule.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If we got rid of that notable point, I wouldn't mind in the least. It isn't you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of the tweak is to try to increase the chance of getting more relevant articles on the main page. Giving priority to 25th and 75th anniversaries is a way to do this. The thing to consider is whether we will be better able to encourage more relevant articles being on the main page. E.G., I see Ann Bannon listed as an upcoming birthday and I think "We missed her 75th birthday." I would have possibly supported a 75th even though her article is not that vital. A 76th b-day is far less relevant and even a 70th or 80th is less relevant. If we don't have rules that reflect true relevance to the main page the proper things will not prevail in this process. The simple approach of saying I don't want to think about whether this rule will help us get more relevant things on the main page because it will add an extra 6 or 7 words of prose to the already extensive rules seems wrong. I think you should say either I believe a 75th (25th) anniversary is more relevant than a 70th or 80th (20th or 30th) or not. I think if you think 75th or 25th anniversary events are more relevant we should accord them more points in this process.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume the point of having a set of rules is to encourage the selection of the most relevant articles for the main page. If the vast majority of people feel a 75th anniversary is more important than an 80th. It would make sense to have a set of rules that would encourage proper selection of articles. Suppose people believe that the order of importance of anniversaries is 100th, 50th, 25th, 10th, other. Why have a set of rules that supports 100th, 50th, 10th, other and 25th instead. In society rules are suppose to encourage desired behavior. The sensible thing to do would be to have rules that encourage selection of articles in order of importance/relevance. Saying, I would prefer a non-sensical rule that equates 25th anniversaries with common anniversaries because it is 6 or 7 words shorter does not help us highlight the best articles, which is what WP:TFA is all about, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that Sandy would comment here. It seems very odd and non-sensical to me to have a set of rules to encourage people to prioritize articles relevant for the main page, but have those rules encourage them to prioritize incorrectly because it is six or seven words shorter. Does anyone contest that a 25th anniversary is more significant than a 20th or 30th or that a 75th is more significant than a 70th or 80th? Why have a set of rules that encourages people to prioritize 10th anniveraries over 25th anniversaries?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HEY SANDY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on this seems to have stalled, but I'll chime in late and say that I think it's a good idea. 25 anniversaries are indeed more notable than many decennials. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What about 135th anniversary's? Any more important than 10th, 20th etc?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for rule tweak

I have mentioned this a couple of times recently (here and here), but here is my formal proposal. I think it is generally agreed that important anniversaries in order of significance are 100th, 50th, 25th, 10th, but the prioritization imposed by the current point system makes 25th anniversaries a lower priority than 10th anniversaries. I would like to correct this problem by giving 25th anniversaries a 3pt designation. Wehwalt (talk · contribs) has mentioned the notability point is not so useful and could be removed to make way for such a correction. I concur with this sentiment because all articles are suppose to pass WP:N and it is hard to distinguish between something that rises to the notability standards to belong in an encyclopedia and something that is likely to be researched. I have contemplated other minor related modifications, but at this time this simple change of adding a designation that would be useful and removing one that has not been useful is my suggestion. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) has made the point that we may place too much emphasis on dates to prioritize main page suggestions. My point is that regardless of whether or not this is true, we should place proper relative emphasis so that we are not prioritizing date relevance illogically. I am not sure what the 25th anniversary is called but judging by the 10th 15th and 20th which are called Decennial, Quindecennial, and Vicennial I made a guess at the name of the 25th. Corrections are welcome.

Timing (relevance to main page date request)

• Date relevant to article topic: 1 point
• Decennary anniversary (10-year multiples): 2 points
• Quinvicennary?? anniversary (25-year multiples): 3 points
• Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points
• Centennial anniversary (100-year multiples): 6 points

Importance

• Notable topic: 1 point
• Vital article: 2 points
• Core topic: 3 points

Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm open to discussing the 25-year point, although we already give too much importance to dates IMO, but strongly oppose removing the notable point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't state a reason for your opposition and I have yet to see it used at WP:TFAR. It seems like it is not so useful although it may have been intended to be so. WRT the dates, this is an effort to fix an error rather than an effort to place greater emphasis on dates. We need to get the proper priority for articles and 10yr anniversaries should not be able to bump 25 year anniversaries just because we don't have the priorities defined correctly. I put the two proposals together because Wehwalt suggested that it might help get the 25 year some space on the page and thus support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Amply covered in archives; the notable point was one of Raul's original goals for this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. would you prefer separate proposals?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support however stated. I'm fine with recognizing the 25th anniversary of whatever, in that way. However, please note that I will continue to question anniversaries of doubtful relevance to the subject matter. I also support eliminating the notable topic point. If a workable proposal can be brought in (I don't think any of the ones we considered this summer were really workable) well, we can bring it back. But I thought the whole idea of the project page was to empower the community. The community likes anniversaries and seems to be nominating them. Ours not to reason why. However, I would like to see a sunset provision on the 10 and 25 year. Simply put at the end "(the 10 and 25 year points shall be inapplicable to intervals in excess of 200 years)". --Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I think there are already too much date relevancy and not enough notability points and this would just make things worse. Some things, such as older paintings or literary works, are very difficult to date but are pretty notable. If you want to "place proper relative emphasis" on things, then add more points to notability, don't take them away. This suggestion tips the balance way too much in favor of dates. Wrad (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on my statement "place proper relative emphasis". This is not an attempt to increase the emphasis on dates and decrease the emphasis on notability. This is an attempt to fix the fact that 10 year anniversaries are given higher priority than 25 year anniversary. I could repropose this without the reduction in notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's what you're attempting to do, it is what you're doing. I'd be in favor of a more balanced proposal. Wrad (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what more balanced means. I think you are saying you want more things other than date relevance to use. Here is my unworkable suggestion. I would make a listing of TFAs by talk page projects. I would take a count of how many times articles from each project have been TFA. I would determine underrepresented projects. That would take a lot of work and would be hard to keep updated as new projects add talk page tags but it would help add diversity. However, I still would like to get the relative priority of 10 and 25 straightened out. Do you think the 10th anniversary is really more important than the 25th?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Support the re-scoring of 25th anniversaries; Neutral on notable topic rule. (I didn't notice this when I chimed in above.) I agree that 25th and 75th anniversaries are generally considered more notable than, say, 30th and 70th. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have three Supports, one Oppose, and little discussion on 3 points for 25-year multiples. I didn't add it; anyone have further input? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: 25th anniversary suggestion - but would also suggest the re-scoring of all multiples of 5 anniversaries - such as 65, 75, 85, and - my personal favourite at the moment - 135th.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose WP:CREEP. Also, I think a 10th year anniversary is more significant than the 1,935th anniversary of something or other. It isn't longevity, it is giving points for urgency to get something on the page for a significant anniversary. Frankly, I'd be happy to see the 10 year sunset at around 200 years. Multiples of five just aren't significant enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)