Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 8

Points help - please!

My first attempt at nominating an article for TFA, Sunderland Echo, is in danger of being removed from the request list next, despite some kind support, four points and an anniversary looming on 22 December, due to some heavy-scoring articles requested for early next year. My question is, and I really don't want to sound cheeky here, but can I request an extra point, per the suggestion from Josiah Rowe under my entry on the request page? This editor commented: "An argument could be used that newspapers are so under represented at FA that this should get "diversity" points as well." There are only two FA newspapers that I have come across, the Echo and The Philadelphia Inquirer, which was on the front page in March. I really, really don't want to sound pushy. (And I'm very sorry if I do!).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand. I really don't think you're in much danger, there aren't that many five point articles around. The thing is, I don't see any way to a fifth point, you're already getting main page representation points. For the underrepresent point, we go strictly by the FA categories, and your article is in a category with at least 50 articles. I think you'll be OK, as long as the Poe article isn't also nominated 29 days in advance.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Wehwalt - you made me feel much better!! (Keeping my fingers crossed about Poe though...)-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul seems to be scheduling well in advance; it is very likely Dec 22 will be scheduled before Poe is eligible for inclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a suggestion to the project page that articles with more than 4 points be nominated 2 weeks ahead of time rather than 4. I agree that some of the lower point total articles are interesting enough that they should be allowed some time to gather votes. I of course contributed to this problem by nominating Wallace as soon as I could, but as a first time nominator I had no way to realize that I might be creating a problem and human nature (simple anxiety and anticipation) is going to tend to make any first time nominator want to get the nomination started as soon as possible. A simple suggestion on the project page (or even on this discussion page) would have been enough to make me more polite. I think this would be far more effective than protest opposition to nominations that were made in good faith. Rusty Cashman (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, and it could lead to openings being missed. When Raul has pending travel, for example, he has been known to schedule well in advance. If he were to schedule out all of December and early Jan, we wouldn't want someone to miss an eligible slot. Given the approaching holidays, I think the requests are fine. On the other hand, if I was aware that there were several worthy lower-point articles trying to get on the page for the next two weeks, then I would oppose the later higher-point noms so they could be temporarily moved off. There is nothing else in the pending template of concern, and we shouldn't plan around Johnny-Come-Lately's. As things stand now, I don't see a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but adding almost anything to the instructions on the project page will raise WP:CREEP concerns. It's happened before.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Granma (yacht) - main page appearance on talk page?

This article appeared on the main page on December 2, 2008. When I commented to Raul about the choice, he said he did not know anything about it. Is there an archive of past requests? The Granma (yacht) talk page does not have any notification that it was on the main page. I just happened to see it there on December 2. I thought that a banner went on the talk page stating the date an article appeared there. Since this article talk page does not have one on it, is there a way of putting it there? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I show St. Kilda as the TFA for Dec 2. Granma is not a FA. Not sure what's up.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article appeared in the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 2 section, which anyone can edit. (Motto: Be Bold - apparently). None of the other articles mentioned in this section on the same day (that I've checked, anyway) have any mention of featuring on the main page either. According to this,[1], its brief mention encouraged a huge number of views.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I love that tool, I check out views on the articles I'm involved in. Sometimes the views spike for no known reason and you just wonder why . . . I guess there is no template for what is being talked about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess I was not understanding things very well, as now I see that it is not even an FA. Thanks for the responses. The spike for Granma (yacht) , can it be accounted for? —Mattisse (Talk) 08:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some newspaper somewhere ran an article on it. After all, it is the 50th anniversary of these events, and of the Cuban revolution next month.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Prensa Latina? –thedemonhog talk • edits 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Would History of evolutionary thought qualify for Centennial anniversary points for Darwin's birthday?

I am planning to nominate History of evolutionary thought for the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth since Charles Darwin has already been on the front page. I had been assuming that since it was tied to a 200th anniversary it would get 6 points. I figured it would end up with 8 because Evolution was on the front page in 2005 and the only other similar FA article I can think of would be History of Biology which has yet to be on the front page. However a comment from Wehwalt previously on this page seems to question whether it would really be entitled to the 6 points for a centennial. Since there has been enough excitement in this area recently I thought I would ask what other people thought rather than just add it to the template as an 8 point article and see how people react. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes with a date connection as +1, no with the 200th part. Nergaal (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, History of evolutionary thought is truly one of Wikipedia's best. In the FAC it was thoroughly reviewe! Excellent article. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a fine article. But the +6 is such a heavy weight, I think it is to be reserved for anniversaries of great significance to the article itself. If we could run Darwin again, it would be entitled to plus six. An article related to Darwin doesn't get the plus six, but can get, as Nergaal suggested, date relevance. If we run Wallace, we may have to talk about how that affects main page representation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks are pretty fast and loose with date connections IMHO, but a 6 pointer would be viewed quite closely. I'd add a point for basic subject matter - 12 year olds write many papers on the theory of evolution and some of those inevitably get into its history (e.g.Lamarckism). Aren't there a lot of colloquia, etc on Darwin's birthday? That might result in a 10 year anniversary. Good luck on this, it will have strong support. Smallbones (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support it myself for TFA, unless a strong Lincoln article can be found (given the attention given to the Lincoln bicentennial). Doesn't look like there are any eligible or near eligible.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I am confused. I tried to nominate by editing the list the same way I did when I prenominated Wallace. The result appears correctly here [2], but not on this page. Cans someone tell me what I did wrong? Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, now it has appeared. I guess I had to edit and save something on this page as well as the list itself to make it show up. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the template is not constantly updated on this edit page, just every minute or so. I've questioned the points, per above, if Wallace runs, another evolution-related article within 30 days may lose points. We should probably talk that out in advance.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Urr... Feb 12- Jan 9 = 1 month and 3 days. Smallbones (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. As I noted somewhere, I thought it was Jan 18.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see Alfred Russel Wallace as being similar to History of evolutionary thought. Wallace is a biographic article about a Victorian scientist I would see similar articles to it being other Victorian scientist biographies such as Charles Darwin which appeared on the front page in 2007, and articles such as Thomas Henry Huxley and even Lord Kelvin which are not yet FA. It might also be considered similar to any biographic article on an evolutionary biologist say Stephen Jay Gould or Ernst Mayr but few of those are FA either. Articles that I would see as being similar to history of evolutionary thought would include articles on evolutionary theory like Evolution (on the main page during 2005) or natural selection and modern evolutionary synthesis (neither of them FA). Other similar articles would include "history of" history of science articles like History of paleontology or history of geology, but the only other one of those that I know of that is FA is History of biology and that one has never been on the main page (a shame actually). Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. It's just that Wallace is extensively covered in the History article ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Overly early nominations"

An oppose has been registered against my TFA nomination Nimrod Expedition for 9 January, on the grounds that the nom is "overly early". The article is an eight-pointer, and the argument seems to be that I could have nominated it any time in the next four weeks and been certain of a place on the short list of five.

While I understand the opposer's point, what he seems to be suggesting is that I should have concealed my eight-point bludgeon, allowed other low-point nominations to sit in the short list with false expectations, then at a time of my choosing WHAM! - sock 'em with the full eight points. Why is that reasonable, or preferable to the present situation? I very much dislike the system of having to dump a perhaps superior article to make room for mine, but under this system that is always likely to happen to two-pointers. The system, like life itself, is somewhat arbitrary and harsh but, like the rules say, the decision on each TFA is not made by this process, but by the FA director, whose approach is, I like to believe, entirely qualitative. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. You could have allowed other articles to use the slot to get on the page, and then put it on when there was a vacancy. If you were slow on the trigger, then you could have gone WHAM!. But as it is, we will enjoy the company of your article for the next 30 days minus whatever lead time Raul uses, when that slot could have been used for articles in December, while still assuring yourself of ample time to get on the page. It's a protest vote, please don't take it for more than that. I will be pleased to see it on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The thought behind the oppose is that Raul will likely schedule some of the earlier dates, leaving open slots for those articles that would like a later date. However, occasionally Raul schedules several weeks in advance, so waiting to nominate a later article runs the risk of having the desired date be scheduled already. The rules currently allow for nominations up to 30 days in advance, and I don't personally see the harm in them. Opinions disagree, though. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec. I've never known Raul to run more than 2 weeks in advance in the 7 months I've been working this article. I don't think there's a good solution here. Ideally I would like to reduce the 30 days to say 21, but apparently that is not in the cards.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I might get a trout slapping for this, but I'm removing Nimrod in favor of Lazare Ponticelli. You can wait in line, and besides, if Raul is schedulind "a few weeks in avance, that would be December 24, not January 9. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not nice, not good, no reason, against the page rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy. Rules is rules, and this is not an IAR situation. As I've said, there is always next year. I suggest you revert yourself lest you tick off editors for no good reason and perhaps poison the well for future situations.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I must be ignorant of the rules. I was always under the impression that the earlier slot is kept in favor of the later one unless it is a 0 pointer. While it is "only" a two pointer, why can't it be scheduled for the 24th? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

EOTW, pls read the page rules, you broke them. Please revert yourself. The rules is the rules, and we're trying to establish on this page whether the community has the discipline to police itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted, but I wish to start a discussion on this. What Raul will do is probably select a random FA for the main page on the 24th instead of a two pointer. Utterly ridiculous. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If the more than 1,000 articles waiting (at least half of those, much longer than you) felt the same way, the main page scheduling would be chaos. There are many factors that go in to mainpage scheduling, and that's why we have rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(out, e/c) Hey, wait here. Not commenting on EOTW's situation, but Wehwalt...don't be dumb. "There is always next year"???? Holy cow man, think about what you are saying. That is just cruel to say—who in their right mind wants to wait for 365 days to try and nom their article again? Come on, be reasonable. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The approximately 500 articles that already have been waiting more than a year, for instance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the thought. There is no 365 day wait. The guy was born, the guy died. There are other possible dates of significance, such as anniversaries of battles in which the guy fought, as well as Veterans Day. And Raul may use the article anyway. I don't think it is anymore cruel to say "wait til next year" than to mention the 1,000 articles patiently waiting. Each of those have editors who put their heart and soul into it to get to FA, and would love to see them main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, next time please don't say that they can wait a year...just say that "there are other dates too". For my article, that wouldn't have mattered (Dec. 7th was the only date I wanted to put it up, regardless of any other possible dates), but saying that there are other dates sounds better and kinder than "wait until next year". I'm not going to get into an conflict over this, but just think about that, ok? =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT say they could wait a year, I said it could wait until next year. If you are not familiar with the term, it derives from here Next year is (counts fingers, etc) 22 days away. "Wait til next year" is kinda a generic term in my book for "wait until your next opportunity" anyway, it doesn't literally mean that. I am sorry if you were offended, there was no intent to. But as Sandy points out, the Ponticelli article has no higher claim than the 500 plus articles and their authors who have already been waiting for next year for a year or more.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

EOTW: Put Ponticelli in the box on top of this page. I did that with the Frank Zappa article that ran on December 4. I terrible miscounted its points and eventually it was not among the five. But it got some supports, and apparently that was noticed by Raul who ran it after all. So as far as I can see there is no other suggested for December 24, so put it up there. You already got some support. So there is no need to break the rules. In addition (@ Wehwalt), I must add that when there are rules, then all should obey them. That means that Nimroy is NOT an early nomination. It is within the rules, and opposing it because it is close to a month into the future, is a poor reason. I don't think we should have protest votes here. Instead the concerns should be discussed the appropriate place.--HJensen, talk 12:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried other means. Excepting Sandy, I've probably been continuously involved longer than anyone else on this page. A protest vote is not going to knock an eight point article off the page. However, I don't know what else to do. We are now in a situation where we really only have three slots to play with, and will probably hand Raul fewer articles as a result.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(@HJensen) Absolutely protest votes are within the rules; if an article is on the page that a !voter feels is keeping another worthy article from a slot, they are within the rules to oppose. The idea is to give the community a voice in what we want to see on the mainpage; that includes opposing if we prefer something else. I support what is currently on the page, so I haven't opposed the early Jan noms. I don't want to see a TFA of an article that is at FAR with plagiarism, dead links, a dubious date connection, and prose concerns when there are hundreds of 2-point articles that want to get on the mainpage. If someone showed up five minutes from now with a lesser-point article that they wanted to get on the page and that I thought was as worthy of the slot as these higher-point, further-away requests, I may temporarily oppose these articles that may have another chance to get on later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't mean to say that protest votes were against rules, but more that they put strategic reasons above quality assesments. I thought the votes were to reflect assesment of a given article. Startegic voting opens up for people oposing articles just because they want "their own" article featured. That would not be a pleasant situation.--HJensen, talk 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, but editors have been pretty good about avoiding strategic or spite votes. It hasn't been a problem. Whether that is due to the goodheartedness of WP editors, or fear of getting a dose of it when their own FA comes around, I AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Our labeling of "Support" and "Oppose" declarations here as "Strategic voting" or "protest votes" was misleading and probably hurtful; the purpose of this page is to help assign a limited number of slots according to community preference, and opposes are to be expected as in any other process. To the extent that perhaps I, also, didn't take time to explain and answer concerns carefully here, I feel responsible for this confusion and hurt feelings. (Continued below.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Sandy. I won't do an oppose based on whether I supported/opposed what was there before, because I'm afraid that this page could degenerate into spite opposes in a big hurry. As for Ponticelli, the FAR was more serious than I thought it would be, once people started looking into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your second sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say that: I don't hold it against an article that it replaced an article I was hoping to see TFA, when I decide whether I'm gonna support or oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But you can if you want to; this page is to help us say what we want to see as TFA. I'm still not sure if you and I aren't saying the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we are. You can support or oppose for your own reasons, because you are shaping the community's recommendation, and you are a part of the community. Right?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is not really about "Overly early nominations." These nominations are following the rules, on a page where the rules are fairly confusing. The sub-text is that the rules are not fair or are not working. I'd say that though the rules are very confusing at times, that they are more or less fair, and that TFAR (and TFA in general) works pretty well. There could certainly be more room for input from TFAR into TFA, but that seems to be up to Raul to decide. I'll suggest some tweaks to the rules that could lead to more input, and would like to know what others think. 6 requests (or slots) at a time vs. 5 would be an easy way for more input. Early scheduling would be nice. Multiple requests for the same date (without taking up an extra slot) shouldn't be a problem. There are lots of small tweaks that could be made to increase input. The ultimate questions are whether this would improve TFA (I think it would marginally), whether the users of this page want it (well, it keeps coming up); and what Raul thinks about it (no real idea). Smallbones (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the last factor, Raul, is the big one, because as Sandy has told us a number of times, Raul said "five at a time" so we really can't change that to six, only Raul can. I'm not in favor of multiple requests for the same day because Raul can only run one article at a time without IAR a la McCain/Obama, therefore the community needs some way of deciding between articles for the same day. We haven't had any significant conflicts over articles for the same day, so I'm not sure a tweak is needed. The page is working pretty well, but I am hopeful that by protest opposes, I can affect the timing of nominations. I think ideally a nomination should come on 18-20 days in advance. Raul hasn't scheduled that far ahead in the seven months I've been here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing Nimrod. Whatever the rules, rights or wrongs, I am not comfortable in a system whereby an action of mine causes such dissent and potential ill-feeling, and I'd rather not be part of it. I would ask that nobody else renominates later. Raul will hopefully know by now the significance of the 9 January centenary. If he selects the article, well and good, if not, well I've survived bigger traumas. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PS Thanks to those who supported it for TFA.

This is really unfortunate. If the editors who frequent this page dislike the rules they have created, they should change them. Otherwise, they should abide by them. The inevitable result of setting up a system and then violating it is that you will alienate people who come by who don't know the "super secret" rules. Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the major problems with this is the stubbornness to change the rules, "because the current rules work" (which I agree with; just because you're article doesn't make TFA, it isn't the end of the world; the article which was replaced has two stated birthdays, if I remember, so it will have a second chance pretty soon, regardless). JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Come up with a better system and let's talk. I'm not happy about the sore feelings, but things are going here much better than five months ago. Check the archives, I have proposed any number of changes, but it is very difficult to get consensus here.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(Continued from above) There are over 1,000 FAs that haven't appeared on the mainpage and the community was clamoring for input into the process, with the old process resulting in hundreds of requests at a time, a lot of acrimony, no consensus, and no way to sort the requests. There were oppose and support declartions, but no way to move requests off the page, so Raul had to read through hundreds at a time. Acrimony and discussion went on for months, while the new process has been stable for many months now. Having said that, the confusion here that led to Brianboulton withdrawing a legitimate request, and a fine mainpage choice, should be sorted (it is not a given that Raul is aware of the article). Awadewit referred to "secret rules", meaning (I guess? not sure?) that the page rules are not clear enough because Brainboulton was left feeling uncomfortable. I'm not sure what can be done to remedy this, considering the constraints of too many FAs and not enough slots, but hopefully we can try to solve this. Doing that will require more long-term input and feedback. The problem has been that people typically only come to this page when they have a request, so they tend to propose changes that may address one article or one short-term issue without having studied the longer-term issues that have always been in play here. If there is a way to make the process more clear, hopefully we can discover that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well put Sandy. Why don't we start by restoring Nimrod to the template? Odds are that Raul looks at that. I am not sure if my protest opposes to early nominations was a factor or not, Brian wasn't clear, but I will withdraw my oppose on the Wallace article on the same ground, changing it to a comment and neutral.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd opt instead to let this settle for a day or two and hopefully Brianboulton will come back and discuss more. For now, I'd rather respect his wish that we not re-add it, but if the date approaches and we haven't sorted this, we might re-evaluate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not the project page, the template. Oh. You did it. OK, again we are actually in agreement. How's the coffee?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think a simple suggestion that if your article has 5 or more points you not nominate it more than 20 days ahead of time to avoid clogging the page with "nearly sure thing" nominations would probably solve the problem. Certainly if I had read such a suggestion I would have held off a week on nominating Wallace, and I suspec the nominator of Nimrod would have done the same thing. Certainly if I nominate History of evolutionary thought for the 200th anniversary of Darwins birthday on Feb 12 as I plan to do I will be more considerate now that I am aware of the problem. I am glad that the Echo newspaper article was able to stick around and pick up a few more votes. I liked it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what Wehwalt posted above, I have been continuously discussing and voting on this page longer than anyone else, going back to August 2007 (although I was on a real life vacation this summer). I have not commented in this discussion because I anticipated that it would be easily resolved and I was busy, but it has not been and it is now the weekend. (Hi.) I view TFAR as one of the most stragetic and politically-driven places on Wikipedia. I think that people read into the rules here too much sometimes. I do not think that editors come here to best others with their most point-worthy basic subject matter; I think that people come here because they have worked hard and are looking to be rewarded via TFA. All of my oppose votes through the countless nominations in the last sixteen months can be counted on one hand. Sometimes, I simply do not vote on a nomination (if it is done by removing someone else's request) one way or the other because I do not want to upset someone and actively take part in taking down an article because it is from a topic with a higher concentration of excellent content or because a somewhat-related article was scheduled recently beyond the user's control. More good faith should be assumed here. Brianboulton was trying to play by the rules; he should not be penalized for not having previously followed the page and for failing to read behind the lines of the almost convoluted instructions. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I bow to my senior colleague. Well, what do you suggest we do? I don't think Brianboulton was penalized in any way and it is not clear to me what precipitated his action. I think it more likely to be the replacement by Ponticelli and the drama over that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that both you and SandyGeorgia have more edits than me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly support Rusty Cashman's suggestion, above, of a 20-day timeframe for articles with heavier point scores - I would suggest 4 points rather than 5 as the relevant cut-off figure. This should be a firm rule, not an "understanding" or convention. I would also like to suggest two other things. First, instead of articles being "removed" from the 5-article summary as at present, they should be transferred to a "reserve list", linked to the TFA nomination page, where they remain, with accumulated supports on display, until their claimed date has passed or their nominator chooses to remove them. That way, nominators need not feel that they are also executioners, and editors of replaced articles can feel that they are still visible within the system. Secondly, I suggest a thorough overhaul of the rubric on the nomination page, so that the rules and procedures are absolutely clear to everyone, especially first time nominators such as myself. Look at WP:FAC and there are very clear, step by step procedures laid out, and little excuse for people getting things wrong. The same transparency should apply here. Experience, however, tells me that Wikipedians are lovers of debate and, ultimately, stasis, so I'd be surprised if there is any quick movement along the lines suggested, but I would ask that they are given serious thought.

For Mr Wehwalt's benefit, I don't think I was "penalized". I think it's an unpleasant syatem with an unpleasant feel to it, and I don't want to be part of it - my choice. Brianboulton (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would have no trouble with Rusty Cashman's suggestion, I suggest he make it a proposal and let's start the ball rolling. Brian makes good points as well. If you look in the archives, I have made a number of proposals for clearing up what I see as ambiguities, as have others. They usually get shot down.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of falling into cliché: If at first you don't succeed... If Rusty doesn't want to make a formal proposal, I will. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True. If we are doing a rewrite, what I think is vital is that this be accessible to the novice. Right now, to quote Beetlejuice, this page "reads like stereo instructions". The TFAR novice is at a big disadvantage, he is intimidated by the process, and when he ventures to propose an article, there's often a mistake and he gets pounded for that. What's the economics term, barrier to entry?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal regarding high-point nominations

Per Brianboulton and Rusty Cashman's suggestions above, there are three proposed changes.

1. If an article has 5 (4?) or more points, it should be nominated not more than 20 days ahead of time to avoid clogging the page.
2. Removed articles are transferred to a reserve page.
3. Overhaul of page instructions for clarity.

Adding all of the necessary verbiage to accomplish No. 2 may defeat the intent of No. 3. Suggested mockups of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions might be the way to approach this task: we successfully re-structured the page once, so I don't see why we can't do it again, if someone wants to do a mockup on a temporary page.

Regarding No. 1: a) do we want to suggest or mandate, and b) should the limit be 4 or 5 points? The current instructions say:

Adding requests
Please nominate only one article at a time. The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. ...

The proposal is to add wording, perhaps similar to:

Adding requests
Please nominate only one article at a time. The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. History shows that requests with 5 or more points are unlikely to be replaced: holding off until 20 days before the requested date on articles with 5 or more points will allow more opportunity for lower-point requests.

That's a first pass only: wording to be tweaked according to discussion below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I support a suggestion (not a mandate) to hold off on requests with 5 or more points until 20 days; I think the 4-point threshold is too low, and don't favor mandating this change. Raul has asked for 5 requests within 30 days, and mandating a change to 20 days on higher-point articles might not be necessary, as most requestors will likely respect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy, God's in his heaven, all's well with the world. The sun shines brightly on a tranquil earth. I'd tend to agree, but I would also urge potential requestors to start a discussion on talk page to see if it is REALLY five points or more, given the tendency sometimes to claim Antidisestablishmentarianism as basic subject matter for twelve year olds! As suggested, I'd say five, we almost had Sunderland Echo (4) bounced, and if Raul hadn't scheduled early, it might have been.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Add your suggested wording? But then people complain about the length of the page instructions ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm, now that I think some more about it, since it is a disincentive, rather than an incentive, we really don't need language as I suggested. People aren't being rewarded for having a five point article, after all, by being made to wait. We just have to be sure, as regular users administer the page, that we don't let someone who puts his article on more than 20 days in advance suddenly discover additional points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I recall that in the first few days of the point system, a rather high-scoring article was submitted quite a bit ahead of the deadline. I politely noted that it would be of good etiquette to remove the nomination and wait a bit to allow for other articles to go through. The response from the nominator was something like, "You guys made up the rules and I followed them. Politeness be damned!" This whole discussion started on a rules-are-rules theme. I think it would be better to make it a rule rather than a suggestion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If the 20-day rule (or request) had been in place, and if the page instructions had been written clearly to emphasise this, I would not have nominated Nimrod 30 days before its request date. I was caught in a system whose rules and conventions I didn't understand properly. This, however, is only one example of the instructions lacking clarity for the first-timer. It is more important that these instructions be comprehensive and clear in all respects, as they are at WP:FAC, than it is to keep them short just because some people might complain. Nevertheless I believe the crucially required change in this system relates to the reserve list suggestion. I feel extremely uncomfortable under the present rules in having to remove another article from the summary and to replace it with mine. Are there practical difficulties in implementing the reserve list? Finally, we must accept that whatever system is in place, a few people may try and find loopholes to their advantage, but that shouldn't stop us trying to make the system better. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything for Lincoln's birthday

With Lincoln having his 200th birthday coming up in 2 months, I was wondering if anyone sees anything on the FA list or capable of improvement to be a FA for that day. I'd be happy to help, but we'd really need to get it to FAC within a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist" There might be some competition for 6 point articles! Maybe we should say that Feb 11, or Feb. 13 is "also an anniversery"? Smallbones (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Darwin's already been TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's also been TFA. Not that I have a preference, but the Wallace nomination suggests that naturalists take this anniversary very seriously. I looked for some Lincoln related articles, but didn't see anything obvious. If you need some help, hopefully I can add more than my usual hot air. Presidents Day (Feb. 16) is an obvious way to avoid a clash of titans. Smallbones (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I doubt Raul will run either a second time. While he IAR'd for the McCain/Obama election on November 4, he stated on the discussion page that he was reluctant to do so. This is merely an anniversary. I was hopeful that some related article might be FA or close to it. I was thinking Lincoln related, but you are right, with Presidents Day, no reason why the 12th couldn't be Darwin related. First, we need a FA . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yipes, I am strongly considering nominating History of evolutionary thought for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday on Feb 12th. I never considered the fact that it was the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth as well. Well we will just have to see who comes up with the best article to nominate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think it would actually be able to claim centennial points itself, though others may disagree, but it would be a fine article to have on Feb 12. Why not add it to the Template, which is looking fairly lonely these days?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, History of evolutionary thought is truly one of Wikipedia's best. I remember the FAC and was thoroughly worked over! Excellent article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln needs serious work, looks like, though perhaps not impossible. Abraham Lincoln assassination seems to be mostly from one source. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All that's rquired is for someone to produce an article on the evolution of Abraham Lincoln, bring it up to FA standard and we can cover both anniversaries ;-) —  Tivedshambo  _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 12:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal re high points article

I've written up the following as a proposal, to be added immediately under "adding requests" in bold face:

"No article, which the nominator claims has four points or more, shall be added to the requests page more than twenty days in advance of the requested date."

The proposal would not be retroactive.

Short and sweet. I don't much care either way, but I'll start out by lending it my Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, my proposal, which was worded as a request rather than a rule:

• History shows that requests with 5 or more points are unlikely to be replaced: holding off until 20 days before the requested date on articles with 5 or more points will allow more opportunity for lower-point requests.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with Sandy's suggestion, and seeing if editors take any notice or not. If they don't, make it a rule. —  Tivedshambo  _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That could be a good approach (start it as a suggestion, if we have problems, move to Wehwalt's stronger wording). I'm not certain my wording is the best possible yet, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How about, "History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. We ask that you wait until there are 20 days or less before nominating such an article. That avoids tying up a slot for a long period of time, and allows other articles their chance." A little friendlier.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Or avoid the "we" (who is we?) with: "History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Consider waiting until there are 20 days or less before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and allow other articles their chance." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my mother always taught me to say please, and I would do so right before the word "Consider".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We could also tweak the date thingie in the Summary chart (I'll never be able to calculate the 20 days), with:

• Currently accepting requests from December 28 to January 27 (January 17 for articles with five or more points). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Wouldn't that make people think it was a rule, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to give requestors more clue: maybe we can find a way to reword it, but still have the auto date calculation. Also, this originally came up on December 10, and no one has objected, so I agree we should go ahead and add it (say, tomorrow?) unless someone disagrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live without rewording it. After all, the caption to the summary box is not part of the rule. And this may lead to more realistic point calculations, people won't be claiming Quantum Mechanics as basic subject matter, or date relations on the article subject's cousin's sixth (adopted) daughter's birthday (according to the Hebrew calendar, though all of them are Presbytarian).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, because I have a really busy day tomorrow (no one has objected since this was initially raised weeks ago). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Modest Proposal

Modest Proposal - why not make the appearance on the request page be purely mechanical. This would involve the institution of a waiting line page, which could look like the current TFAR page, except that it could have more than 5 nominees on it. Editors could comment on this page, debate points etc. It would be put in strict date order. A mechanical rule to promote the article from the waiting page to the TFAR page could work as follows. The article with the earliest request date will be moved to the TFAR page as soon as an open slot occurs or a slot is occupied with a nomination with fewer points. If the article with the earliest request date cannot be moved to the request page, the nomination with the next earliest request date will be moved, and so forth. Nominations with 4 or more points will only be moved to the request page 7 days before their request date.

Obviously the proposal could use some tweaking, but it should eliminate any complaints of unfairness, benefits of strategizing, etc. One thing it might do is give some people an incentive to knock off a nomination (i.e. oppose a nomination for TFA) in order to open up a slot.

All-in-all I think that this is slightly better than the above proposals, and would give us an extra page to play with, without (presumably) upsetting Raul or his rules. Smallbones (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . I'd be a bit concerned that articles would be trapped by the uncertainties of Raul's scheduling process.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing "7 days" to "10 days" or 15 days should answer that objection - how often does Raul actually look at TFAR, or how much does he usually schedule ahead? Smallbones (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is labor intensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Labor intensive only in 1) creating the waiting line page, and 2)in handling increased traffic because of more open slots (as the earlier proposals try to do). I don't think that the iterative aspect of the algorithm causes any extra work. In practice it would come down to "What's the earliest 3 pointer? If none occur, what's the earliest 2 pointer?" etc. Not high math at all. I could be leaving something out I guess, but haven't seen it yet. Smallbones (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is what the page looked like when requests were not limited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While there is merit to the proposal, since we have no effective means of settling point disputes, I think in practice it would be difficult to implement. And as for Raul's scheduling, er, schedule, we don't know. It can run anywhere from "just in time" to two weeks ahead. And Sandy has a point, it could wind up as "just park your FA here, we'll do all the rest" with a large number of FAs. That doesn't mean I'm against it, but I'd like to see the idea refined further.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a "bias" point

It is rare that I peruse an African FA. There is just so much bias toward this continent, it would be helpful to teach people about it. I propose we add a "bias" point to the criteria. Thoughts? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Already covered in the "Main page representation" point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Africa" is not one of those categories. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Key word is "similar" articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the FAs he wants to see exist, nor will people advance them to FA for the sake of one point (or even more) at TFA. From what I see, Raul is constantly scrounging for different articles, and if they get written, I think they'll get used outside of TFAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

TFAR point record

Saxbe fix would probably be a nine or ten-pointer on March 4, 2009. What is the record for most points?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the highest that I can remember. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nine, by the canal.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a race to get the most points in an article, Tony. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Julian. At that level, and I looked at the article and saw it just made GA by the way, you should just insert it and let it go, because the point is to keep it on the project page without picking up a large number of opposes until Raul schedules the day. Incidently, my guess it is going to be in the range of seven points, six for the centennial of using the fix in the Taft matter, and possibly one for a new editor, if there is one. We've had too many American Politics articles for there to be a main page representation point or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, someone tried to bump up the points on History of evolutionary thought from 2 to 7. To my mind, under the new rules limiting the advance adding of high point articles, adding the article this early means that it has at most four points. Otherwise, the nominator ought to remove the article and resubmit it once February 12 is opened up to high point nominations.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost premiere

Problem that needs to be sorted (quickly) before Raul schedules next. I noted on the main page that sources indicate the Lost premiere is January 21, not January 22. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see User talk:thedemonhog#Lost premiere. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep discussion on the main page, so Raul (and others) doesn't have so many places to look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Sorry, when checking my watchlist, I went to my talk page then here and then the requests page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A date I noticed

I just happened to notice that it was the death anniversary of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale on 14 January... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with that one, we sort of considered it back in the fall for the birth date and because of Cleveland Street Scandals, in which he was believed to be involved, we kinda scotched it. I'd put it on the back burner for a while. Since we had a royalty article just before New Years', I don't think this is the most wonderful time for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No points for basic subject matter, no points for age, no points for first time contributor, no points for diversity, minus two since less than 21 days since Gunnhild, Mother of Kings, one point for date relation, total minus one. Yeah, I think back burner time is the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There's always another year... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful. I got absolutely ripped for saying that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, second time will be the charm.  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Contributor history point

Could I ask for clarification of this point please? I've never had an article I've been significantly involved with appear on main page, nor have I ever nominated a page using this process. Does the point apply to the article or the nomination? If, for example, I were to nominate Scotland national football team (see above), could I still claim a point for an article I have been involved with, if I nominated it later? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 11:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It applies to you, regardless of whether you requested it. If you were a significant contributor to a TFA, then you would not be eligible for the point, whether Raul happened to pick it or you or someone else nominated it. You get to use it successfully at most once. Generally speaking, we've taken "significant contributor" to mean that you either were a nominator of the article at FAC or were in the top three or four in number of edits. You see, the idea of the point is not to throw you a free point, it is to get people whose work hasn't been on the main page to have their work there. If you haven't had one, and you nominated the football team, and it did not run, you'd still be able to use the point "next time", so long as no other article to which you were a significant contributor ran. Does this help?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what worried me, and why I haven't nominated articles before. I don't want to waste my point on an article I haven't been involved with - I'd rather keep it for an article that interests me a lot more, and contributed significantly towards. Merely making suggestions on this talk page should not cost me that point. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't whether you nominated here at TFA/R; it's whether you sigificantly contributed to the FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can nominate all the articles you want, but if an article you got a star for at FAC or are in the top three or four in numbers of edits makes it main page, you are no longer eligible for the point. I never got to use the point myself, because an article I was #2 in number of edits got used on the main page under the old process, even though I didn't nominate it. --Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Scottish article for Burns Night

January 25th is Burns Night, and the 250th anniversary of the birth of Rabbie Burns. Although neither of these are FA, it would be appropriate to have a Scottish based article for that date. Any suggestions? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look through the list of featured articles, find one on Scotland that hasn't been used yet, and nominate. I took a quick glance and saw that Dundee hasn't been run yet, though I think it would most likely have negative points because if Washington DC runs on the 20th, another city article is gonna lose points. And, by the way, unless it is really closely associated with Burns, I don't think it is going to get date connection points, let alone 50 year points.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd seen Dundee, but ruled it out for similar reasons. There's a Scottish king, but we've had quite a few monarchs/rulers/presidents recently. How about Scotland national football team? A point for being promoted over a year ago, and possibly a point for not being a similar article within three months. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Priestfield Stadium ran on November 9. I guess we'd have to discuss whether an article on a football stadium is similar to an article on a football team. I'd be inclined to say they are, my view of the main page representation point is to assure we are not neglecting different fields of knowledge, and it shows we are not neglecting football.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to lack of time, I've put it on the project page on your behalf. If you don't want it there, just take it down. But with so little time left, and a fortuitous opening on the project page, I figured it was a good time to put it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Raul has chosen to ignore the request anyway :-(  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominating an article?

I wanted to nominate the article 300 (film) for the next available date, but I'm not sure how to do this. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is an open spot, you add the article to the page for the date you want to add it in (any date of your choosing). The article is then qualified on a point system, which is on the project page. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's pretend I've never done this before.  ;) So, I copy the format of the other requests there, paste in the lead text and image, and give a reason for nominating? I didn't see the point system before, but I just realized it was hidden. :) Thanks! I'll have a look at this again soon. BOZ (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is also confusing, and we ought to restore it. Newbies screw up enough here. By the way, I've questioned the points for 300, seems to me the anniversary of the date it was shown at Cannes isn't terribly significant, we usually do films on the day of actual release, March 7 or 9, depending on US or world.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense, and is not much farther into the future. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C not showing up and a querry

Don't know if it's just my laptop but my request of Chelsea F.C is not appearing in the template. Also I'm not sure if I'm eligible for the "significant contributor" point. BUC (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is because it is a transclusion. It is there. Hit refresh.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this tool, you are in sixth place in terms of number of edits to the page. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not enough, but if you have been doing a lot of work on it recently to bring it up to standards, I'd be inclined to say you should get the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure edit count is the best way to judge if someone is a "significant contributor", but basically I gave is the final push towards FA status and also helpped to update it. BUC (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is merely a rule of thumb. I think we would probably take your word for it. I think we're more interested in making sure that someone who clearly is a significant contributor to a former TFA doesn't get to use the point for another article. So at least ideally, someone checks to see if someone claiming the point has been granted a FA star, will check to see what articles the claimant has a high number of edits on (longtime editors here, like me, thedemonhog and Sandy, have a good working knowledge of what articles have made TFA or can check reasonably quickly). However, as a practical matter, we're fairly trusting, especially now that the drama on these pages has subsided.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BUC, haven't you already had a TFA? Not sure, just asking, I thought you had ... the point is assigned if a contributor has never had a TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I thought it worked that each TFA had a handfull of "significant contributors" asigned to it and if one of thoses users requests it then it get another piont. Are you saying a user can only ever use it once! BUC (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The idea is to get the work of people whose prose has not yet been on the main page, to that position. Accordingly, if a significant contributor (and that term is a bit amorphous) BOTH has not yet been a significant contributor to a previous TFA, AND is the one who requests that the article be on the main page as TFA, then a bonus point is awarded. The idea is to encourage new people's prose on main page, it isn't a free point that gets handed out to everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok well, if I'm eligible, I would like to use it now. BUC (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't do it yet, Chelsea isn't eligible yet. And you need to respond to Sandy's question.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and checked it myself. According to WP:WBFAN, Buc hasn't yet had a TFA, so appears eligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Collpasable header

I've made the calculating points section collapsible, to try and reduce the amount of blurb that users have to scroll through to get to the entries. I think it's an improvement, but feel free to revert if you think it's necessary. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See next section: perhaps it's confusing newcomers to the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've swapped the sections around, so the new heading should make it clearer. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mac for TFA on Jan 24

European Media is already reporting that tomorrow (Jan 24th) is the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the Macintosh personal computer, and it is generating some buzz amongst computer hobbyists. I know the article is not eligible, as it was featured on the front page 2 years ago, and TFA for tomorrow has already been chosen. However, maybe this is a time to implore WP:IAR and reconsider? Dave (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Here's a sample link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7846575.stm

Even if Raul was minded to do so, which I tend to doubt, because he was VERY reluctant to run Obama a second time on election day with McCain, there are just over 80 minutes to go until the 24th, there is no way we are gonna have a full discussion in that time here. I guess you could plead your case on Raul's talk page, but I would be amazed if you were successful. Simply amazed. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Wehwalt...next time, try to bring it up well before. Sorry man, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fully the answer I expected. I don't really have a dog in this fight. Just noticing all these articles in the news, and was surprised it was missed here. For the record, I'm surprised the election day IAR went through also. Cheers Dave (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was an event that has a fighting chance of landing in the top 5 events of the century, IMO; I doubt that anything else even has a chance... :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ed, to join the lovefest! The mac is a cool thingy, and important in many's lives, but compared to a landmark election? Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't plan to re-run any FAs for a long time if ever. The Obama election main page FA was an exception (not to be repeated). Raul654 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Boy, that was one flying toaster that got shot down in a hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...but wow. What a link. You should start quoting old computer stuff for us: "When I was your age, young whippersnapper, we used ___ on computers. Not that fancy 'Wikipedia' you have these days." :D :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Moof! . . . dave souza, talk 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Random query on points

I seem to have lost the place where values for points are determined... where's the page/section where it's explains what points are given for X, Y, and Z? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone put it in a hidden template ... which has led to several queries and some confusion; I'm going to undo that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it... I think the issue is that "adding requests" doesn't tell the uninitiated that scoring is also going to be in that section. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I put it in a hidden section as it seemed to be a lot of stuff to scroll through before getting to the requests. Perhaps the instructions could be on a separate page> —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have it open, too. Having to scroll down is a mild inconvenience. Having to deal with people who couldn't find the points and have asked for help on talk page is more of a pain.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If you want the nomination process to be friendly to users who are not familiar with it, having the description of how points are assigned out where everyone will see it is critical. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nauru

Will be a great feautured article the reason is its a great article and Nauru has not been in the news lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewgeobee (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Independence Day is 31 January, so I guess maybe it is a "next year" situation. Been a while since we had an independent state main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding maindates

I usually add the maindate parameter to the articlehistory template when Raul schedules, but may not be able to keep up with those until after mid-February, in case someone else wants to begin adding them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

From Saturday I'll be on the road again and my internet access is likely to be spotty. If I see it hasn't been done, I'll be happy to. Hope all is well?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All is fine (travel for pleasure :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, if Wehwalt doesn't beat me to it. I've added the TFA subpages for 31 Jan and all of Feb to may watchlist, so I'll spot when Raul schedules them. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever does it first, can do it. It's all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Gimmebot does this automatically anyway. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The centennial...

...of the Great White Fleet's return to the U.S. is coming up on 22 February. Parsecboy (talk · contribs), TomStar81 (talk · contribs) and I are planning on going psycho on USS Connecticut (BB-18), the flagship of that fleet, and nominating it at FAC on Monday or Tuesday, but (assuming it passes) it'll be rather close to the 22nd when the FAC closes. Would it be possible to not schedule the 22nd until we at least see if we can do this crash expansion and nom? Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll keep it open till the last minute, but I certainly won't schedule it soon. So go ahead and nominate it. Raul654 (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be extraordinarily risky, we can file the FAC now and build the article to FA level while the nom works its way down the page. This is extremely risky, but the benefit is that it would allow us to get the 22nd sooner rather than later. If we do go with method it will have to be explained the FAC people that this is something of an IAR filing, and that we intend to address as the issues are brought to our attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not a bad idea as long as we can (mostly) finish the bloody article soon...do you think we should? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm big on net sources. You've got the books. Parsecboy's offered to help. I'm sure if we asked politely MBK would offer some assistance too. No garentees on this, but it would be WP:BOLD, and at this point this option looks to be the only way to get a GWF article up on the 22nd. I say we go for it, but as fair warning this is going to be USS Illinois (BB-65) all over again insofar as we'll have to work overtime to address all aplicable objections. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely...I may have just tried to read that second FAC and stopped only a quarter-way through... :)
I've got oodles of time tomorrow night, Sunday night, and Tuesday night, so what else am I gonna do? :P Plus, assuming MBK signs on, four editors should be able to handle everything without too much overtime...and I'm sure that others will pitch in also. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd be suprised as to exactly how much hostility you can encounter when swimming upstream. That said, four is better than two, and if you have the time and energy to deal with the article and those who will bellache about this and that then we are set for launch. Like I noted though, we need Raul654 or SandyGeorgia (or preferably both) to be on board with the idea before we move on it, otherwise this will be closed almost as soon as it appears. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw c'mon, be positive - this swim will be an adventure, any, an odyssey of epic proportions! ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about requesting it on this page - it's just not that important. Nominate it on FAC and get it to FA status before the 22nd. Raul654 (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If I can find time during visiting my brother next week, I'll make a point of giving it a copyedit after Tuesday. Having expanded two articles in the past months, there's always sawdust and the like you need to sweep up. Not kibbitzing, but did you consider the article on the Fleet itself? Or is that not as congruent with the sources you have?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's that and the fact that there wold be so much to do to get that up to par...a history of a ship is much more straightforward to write, and much less time-consuming...and with time a priority... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see, you'd be writing on the political background and Roosevelt's foreign policy goals and the news coverage ... Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah..."the trip" section would be easy, but the "Background" and "Aftereffects of the Fleet" section would be absolute pains to write lol. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet TFA for Valentine's day

On behalf of the Shakespeare WikiProject, I was wondering if this could replace the currently-scheduled TFA for Feb 14, Valentine's day. The connection is more than obvious and more appropriate than the graphic novel that is currently scheduled, in my opinion. I acknowledge that I should have been better at requesting this at TFA/R, but I was a bit slow and Raul was pretty fast at scheduling this time around. I think it would be best to get some opinions on this before going to Raul, since the currently-scheduled article for the 14th came through here. Maybe someone could ping everyone that voted on the graphic novel? Wrad (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrad and I had a brief discussion of this on Raul's talk page, and I mentioned that two people voted for 300 because it was a contrast to Valentine's Day. That being said, I personally would be fine with 300 being moved to the movie's actual release date in March, the February 14 date being the first showing, at the Berlin film festival. I think all we can do here is have a discussion, get people's views, and perhaps provide Raul with a link to this discussion. He probably has or will see this, but as a courtesy we should probably leave something on his talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Romeo and Juliet would be a wonderful choice for Feb 14, Valentine's day. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I may have voted for 300 because of the anti-date connection of the 14th, but I'd have pulled my vote and voted in favor of this - it more than appropriate. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I favour this for Valentine's Day (although I have a CIO as one of the authors of the article). AndyJones (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

??? I'm entirely confused. 300 (film) received adequate support from several users. It was scheduled on the requested date based on that support. Now we're considering replacing it because suddenly another choice was belatedly thought of? That's not the way this page should work, IMO. I for one also don't like the idea of going beyond the process and discussing it with Raul, as that undermines what we're trying to do here: choice by consensus, not backstage meddling. Raul doesn't like to be bugged, R&J should have come here sooner, there's always next year, etc. Isn't that what is usually said in these circumstances? María (habla conmigo) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was worth a try. Usually Raul doesn't schedule things so early. I feel like I'm respecting the process quite a bit here, not just "discussing it with Raul". I'm talking with you aren't I? It seems like such an easy fix to just switch the dates a little. What's the big deal? I'm willing to go with consensus, which right now is overwhelmingly in favor. How does this overrule "choice by consensus" when that is exactly what we're aiming for? Wrad (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're aiming for a new consensus, one that goes against that which was already reached via the current process of this page. 300 was voted upon and scheduled as per the rules; it even had a few points to stand on. Although I grant that pushing the article's TFA spot to March isn't a big deal in the large scheme of things, where should we draw the line? With this allowance, we risk setting a precedence that will allow anyone and everyone to go behind the scenes, making us "discuss" TFA scheduling rather than following the rules currently listed on the page. Suddenly the rules mean nothing, the process goes out the window, and we're left right where we were before we set up this system. I don't think it's a perfect system by any means, but that doesn't mean we should disregard it all together. María (habla conmigo) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we seek a new consensus! That never happens on wikipedia! The bottom line is, if a consensus of editors believes something should be changed on the schedule, it should be changed. I can't believe you are taking a bureaucratic, process approach ahead of a consensus approach. Our options are 1) force Romeo and Juliet to wait a YEAR because of a bunch of red tape arguments, or 2) make 300 wait a few weeks, something which people seem happy to let happen. Hmmm... Wrad (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

R&J can be scheduled at any time, you know that. It's not like that type of article will sit around for long -- it's only been featured for three months. Why should the process change for this specific article? Is it because it's Shakespeare? Obviously Shakespeare outranks action films and the like; as an English major I tend to agree. Or is it because Valentine's Day is so inherently notable? Ah, nothing like the smell of stale candy hearts and commercialism. Still, 300 has been an FA for a year and a half, and February 14th marks the two year anniversary of its worldwide premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival. It's not as if it hasn't been waiting long enough for the main page or if it doesn't have a specific connection to the date; it has been and it does. But enough of that. Let's scrap the system and make it a free for all: I call dibs on Earth Day for The Bob! María (habla conmigo) 03:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of change; let's do it. March is more fitting for stories of violent military action anyways.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed...murder, stabbings, treachery, poisoning and a doomed love affair. What could be more appropriate for Valentines Day? Yomangani^talk 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a romantic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love it. Wrad (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Aside from the murder part, this sounds an awful like what my last girlfriend did to me... ;D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the people who voted for 300. I would support the swap. Romeo and Juliet is a more appropriate topic for the day. I still support 300 for another day though. The movie has had cultural impact. I actually think it is a good thing that Raul schedules a couple of weeks ahead of time, but every once in a while you have to make an exception. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Maria (dragging my fascinated eyes away from Ed's post, since I want to hear more about the stabbing and poisoning part). It is a good move in isolation, but a dangerous precedent (kinda like the election day double TFA), There is no need to 'wait til next year' (which is a phrase I've abandoned except in connection with the New York Jets.) 300 can run in March, or R&J can run on 23 April, which is Shakespeare's birthday. Unless someone has someting earthshattering to say, I suggest we go on with our business and let Raul make the decision they pay him the big bucks for. But I would suggest that if 300 gets bumped that we put it on the page as IAR, nonbumpable, for the world release date March 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stabbed me in the back when she cheated on me (denying it then and still now), and poisoning me with lies of "oh, I love you, I'm devoted to you, I'd never leave you..." How kind, right?

Wehwalt, we may have our disagreements at times, but this is the reason why I voted "support" in your RfA. I expressed a thought of "don't say 'wait until next year'", and you listened. Thanks for that. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, most everyone here seems to want to do it. IAR. Someone tell Raul. On my part, I've seen several people come here with similar requests, and they were sent to Raul. It's not like this has never happened before. It's not like we haven't changed the schedule before when we found a better mix. This is nothing new at all and the apocalypse is not coming soon. Wrad (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah so, Ed. I was thinking you meant something a little more ... physical. My condolences, it sounds like a Silverstein song. Oh well. Yes, I did listen to you and thank you for your vote and don't terribly worry about your next RfA as far as I am concerned. I would suggest, Wrad, that you just drop a note on Raul's talk again (as proponent, you get to bell the cat) and that we then await developments. If R&J runs on the 14th, we add an extra part to the summary chart saying something like "ONE TIME ONLY EXTRA ARTICLE" and then 300 (film), points are IAR, etc. When we're down to 4 articles again, we merge it into the summary chart, and go on from there. What would solve everything, if Raul replaces with R&J, is for him simply to schedule March 9 with 300 immediatly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RelHistBuff asked me to move Cranmer to a date that would be easier for him to monitor, so I've combined his request with the above - 300 moves up a day (to the 13th), R&J gets the 14th, Cramner gets the 16th, and Agatha Christie gets bumped to the 20th. Raul654 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the maindates (since no one else got to it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hellingly Hospital Railway

Forgive the n00b question, but this is coming up to three significant anniversaries next month (last official use 10 Mar; formal closure 25 Mar; last recorded unofficial use 4 Apr). Is there a protocol for requesting "one of these dates but any of them would be appropriate"? – iridescent 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I would suggest picking the first date and then noting that the other dates would be acceptable. In view of the fact that your article is going to be a 6 or 7 pointer, I would await a vacancy on the page rather than replacing, since no article with more than three points has ever been replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two minor proposals

I would propose we change the rules as follows:

At present, we permit replacement of articles if there are majority opposes, assuming at least 48 hours have passed, and at least five votes have been cast (counting the proposer as a support). I would reduce five to four, because if you have four votes, and a majority against, that would mean the vote is 3-1 against, and the fifth vote won't change the outcome.

Second, at present, we don't have a final tiebreaker for the article to be replaced, if the articles are equal in points, support percentage, and number of support votes, we leave it for the contributor of the replacing article to decide which to replace. I would change that, and instruct that the article proposed for the later date be the one to be replaced.

Support on both.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I support using the date as a tiebreaker. I don't support lowering the number of votes. I think we need to make sure there is enough input to figure out what consensus might be. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1 March

Aston Villa F.C. knocked Llywelyn the Great from the nominations for this date, but has only been opposed. Am I justified in restoring Llywelyn to this date instead? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, any eligible FA can knock off Aston Villa, regardless of points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Points for Real Love (John Lennon song)

I added Real Love (John Lennon song) to the main requests page, and it was removed because 5 requests were there already (a rule I didn't know about).

I then put it on the template at the top of this page instead, at 4 points.

Another user claims that it may only be worth 2 points, so I have decided to discuss it here.

I had "Anniversary of Beatles UK release, been featured for over 2 years, last related article was Something 4 months ago", and the user noted that one point is contested if featured on 5th, rather than 4th, because that was the US release. that is understandable.

What I wish for clarification of is the user's other reason, saying it doesn't qualify for the point for not having a related article at TFA in the last 3 months, saying that Year Zero prevents it from getting this point.

Where is the relation between these 2 articles, and how many points is the article actually worth (if featured on 4 March)? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and welcome. I think that you cannot separate out categories so finely so as to say that Year Zero (album), an article about a record album, and Real Love are in different categories. Albums consist (usually and mostly) of songs. To get main page representation points, there would not have had to have been a similar article in at least 3 months. Note 4 to the rules says "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." One article is about a song; the other is about a record album consisting of songs. They are similar in my book. In my view, assuming no similar articles hitting the queue between now and then, it is 3 points if run on March 4; 2 if run on March 5.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you meant an album - you linked to the concept. Thanks. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Disambig didn't show when I went through the queue. It was only when I actually linked to it that I saw that. Note that if you are a significant contributor to this article, and have not had a article you are a significant contributor on appear main page, you get an additional point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I've hardly ever edited it, if at all, but it's the only FA my WikiProject hasn't had on the main page, so I nominated it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar

Are biographies always hosed by this criterion? If I wanted to try for Peter Jones (missionary) would I have to count him as a political leader, leaving me at -2 or -3 from Isaac Shelby on the 7th[3]? Or could I count him as a religious leader, giving +1 compared to Phan Xich Long, back on November 16th[4]? Would it be both (i. e. a total of -1)? He was definitely both. Thanks WilyD 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say Religious Leader. Did you overlook Thomas Cranmer on Feb 16?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. So I suppose the question's academic anyhow then. WilyD 12:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not try for the anniversary of date of death on June 29, since March 7 seems of no particular relevance to the article? Also, it is mildly frowned upon to nominate a brand new FA without a good reason, like a major anniversary or similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm probably just all excitable having never been here before. (And unknowledgeable of such social conventions, this being my first day and all). WilyD 12:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is kinda an unwritten rule. Please consider nominating it then. If you haven't had a TFA before, you'd get a bonus point for that. Congrats on the pass!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, thanks. As it stands, I'd only have new writer (+1) and underrepresented subject (+1). So I'd need to find either a drought or a good anniversary. WilyD 13:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus date relevance, so three points. That is usually good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of non-date specific requests section.

This has probably been proposed before, or not, along with many other policies, but just one to throw around if it is new.

This date is very biased to the second criteria (Timing), in that a date must be selected. I believe that there should be a added section where articles can be requested not needing a date. Most articles have some date they can correspond to, everything has to start sometime. But it dosen't mean that date is the most notable thing about the article. Surely, a general section of the requests, not needing a date.

So I propose we limit the current section of date requests to four and add a general section, only allowing two articles at any-time and not date specific.  The Windler talk  11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose No demand for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have we ever tested that??? Am I the only one to speak this theory?  The Windler talk  11:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been suggested once before. Check the archives. But we really don't do changes "on spec". Anyone is free to nominate a non date specific article, the one point difference should not be a major barrier.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So a date isn't compulsary, it just seems that way. Thankyou.  The Windler talk  12:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have to specify a date on which you want the article to run. But there need be no actual connection between the article and that date.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there lies my problem. Say Article Y dosen't really have a date that connects and wants to be TFA. But then Article Z comes along with that same date that article Y has selected, and even if it has less points, the date might need to connect. These anniversiries only come around once a year. And a year can be a long time. But anyway, we can drop my proposal.  The Windler talk  21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

People are pretty darn careful to get in their requests early if they have a specific date in mind. I would suggest, if you really don't care about the date, waiting for a vacancy, then nominating for a date about ten days ahead which no one has asked for. If there is a latecomer who just has to have that date, I don't see any problem about moving the request a day. Do you need help calculating the points on a specific article? Let us know which it is, and we'll try to calculate it. I assume you are a significant contributor to that article and have not had a TFA?>--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no. I was just wondering what happens if there is a request absent of the "date" section of calculating. It just seems this request page is biased or meant for that particular criteria. May I ask, how does Raul654 choose an article if it is not requested?? Sorry for the late reply.  The Windler talk  02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Most articles that the community proposes have a date relevance. Yes, there is a bias, but I think the community likes date relevance. We do not know how Raul chooses an article. Obviously he's out to achieve a balance based on five years of experience doing this. He does have some comments which you can link to at the top of the request page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks.  The Windler talk  06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Varsity

Hi. I was hoping to put up Operation Varsity on the project page for discussion, as its 24 March, but I can't figure out how to do all the code and put in the lead. Could someone more knowledgable give me a hand - that's if it's the correct time to do it at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it on your talk page. You just need to add your statement in support, really your justification of the two points you are claiming and any brief statement you want to make, and sign it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey, real kind of you, thanks. Now, to try and remember what those two points were :) Skinny87 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Date relevance and first time TFA for you, one point each. You're welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki

Per the guidelines, Ayumi Hamasaki would have two "official" points: +1 for timing and +1 for contributor history (and I'm not sure about Main page representation), but I was wondering if it were possible to earn unofficial points. I mean, the date I'm aiming for, April 8, is doubly significant: it's not only the date of Hamasaki's debut in the music industry, but this year it's also the release date of Dragonball Evolution, the theme song of which is sung by Hamasaki, so could I get more points that way? Also, there might be a lot of main page articles about musicians, but I was wondering if the article would get any unofficial points because it's the only FA on a Japanese singer. Also, if I'm aiming for April 8, when should I nominate? I'm still kinda unclear on the whole process, so any points in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Ink Runner (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to TFA/R! Instead of unofficial points, what we have are support and oppose votes that can be crucial to keeping the article on the page. I haven't had a chance to read your article, but I can say that an article that is different and well written will get a lot of support here. If you are a significant contributor to the article and nominate it, and you have not had a prior article that you were a significant contributor to appear as TFA, then you would be entitled to a third point! I suggest nominating about three weeks in advance. However, if you see a vacancy, you might just want to grab it. Unfortunately, we don't have extra points for a "double significant date". Dr. Kiernan asked much the same thing in October. Welcome and we look forward to the chance of seeing your article here!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks a lot for your help! Ink Runner (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, you already counted in the contributor history point. I'll strike that portion of my comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Illmatic

I'd like to suggest Illmatic as "Today's featured article" for April 19 (15th anniversary of the album release), yet I have no clue how to calculate the points. Could someone please help? --bender235 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is presently only a GA!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I must have overlooked that. Sorry. --bender235 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

Can someone give my a points ruling on what Saxbe fix would be if it where going to the main page through TFAR on 3/4 or 3/6. I know it starts with about 9, but I never pay attention to main page appearances.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I double counting. Maybe it starts with a seven and is eligible for main page points. Well give me a ruling if you can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it is a Law article (underrepresented), it is six points centennial, two for no similar, one for underrepresented. Nine, which would have tied the record set by the canal.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jordan

Also, I'd like to nominate Michael Jordan for April 6, as this is the date of the announcement of the Hall of Fame class of 2009, of which Jordan will definitely be a part of. --bender235 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, nominate it, just review what is done when one of the other nominations has been made. I should note I would oppose a date relevance point for Jordan. We don't predict the future.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the prediction in this? Jordan being voted in the Hall of Fame? That is as sure as it gets. --bender235 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it sets a bad precedent. Why not hold off until induction date, or do without the one point for date relevance?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(@ Bender) - You have a couple {{cn}}'s in the article. Could you fix them so people don't oppose based on that? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I too would prefer the induction date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He was formerly featured on November 13, 2007.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Not eligible. Sorry, Bender.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Barthélemy Boganda

A user, in posting Barthélemy Boganda to the template, asked for clarification on points, claiming five (4 for fiftieth anniversary of death, one for new editor) and possibly seven after two main page rep points. I think it is more likely five or six. I think we tend to lump politicians together, precluding main page rep points. If not, we had an African topic in late November, the Anglo Zanzibar war, and also Phan Xich Long around than, meaning it would get one main page rep point, since Phan was a decolonizer. Not very good at it, but fits in the category. I would say most likely five, but possibly six. That being said, I will eagerly support the article, given the dearth of FAs we have on non English speaking Africans.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have modified the template to show 5 points. We can discuss whether it gets another point when listed for discussion. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans as FA for main page

How about featuring Osteochondritis dissecans sometime on the main page. It became a featured article through a classroom assignment (Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008), and featuring it on the main page may be a way to show our support for educational projects like these. Remember (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. A quick read over the article doesn't seem to show me any significant date, so why not pick a date and nominate it?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfoturnately, I am too tied up to take the task of nominating and defending the nomination so I was hoping someone else might step up and do this. Remember (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article passed FAC with no outstanding issues, but the prose, linking and MoS still need some work before I would consider it fit for the mainpage. I put in a request for additional review at the Medicine Project, and don't believe it's ready for the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

World Arthritis Day is October 12. Plenty of time to get the article really up to snuff. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests to tidy up the remaining issues at this article have gone unresolved for many days now; it doesn't appear the article is well watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

White Deer Hole Creek

I am thinking of nominating White Deer Hole Creek for April 13th. I believe it has 5 points. It was promoted to FA on December 10, 2006, over two years ago (2 points). It served as the southern border of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania when that was formed on April 13, 1795, (mentioned in the lead and article) so it gets 1 point for a date relevant to article topic. This also earns 2 points since it is well over six months (actually almost 18 months) since the last stream article appeared on the Main Page (Larrys Creek, which was Today's Featured Article on October 19, 2007). I have recently made sure the article is still up to snuff, although there are still a few things I need to check before April 13. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Might quibble with you about the date relevance point, the fact that the border ran for a short distance (if i read the article correctly, just where it runs through the mountain) along the creek doesn't make it a big deal to the creek. Otherwise the points seem in order, the only article we've had in six months on a body of water is the canal one in November, and I will agree that a creek is not a canal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, creeks do not typically have lots of dates associated with them. In fact, I think that there are only two dates in the whole article (the other is when the land was purchased from the Iroquis on November 5, 1768, along with much of the rest of that part of Pennsylvania). This date seemed like the more relevant / important of the two, and if you look at the watershed map, the southern border of the county still approximates the watershed border. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

PS I would not apply it here, but would it make sense to have a third point in the future for a gap of more than a year since the last similar article appeared on the Main Page? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I would suggest not, since that is too heavy a thumb on the scales about something that it is very subjective sometimes. I can just hear the arguments that this video game is different from all other video games, or this battleship is the only one to have some fine technical point, thus it is a class by itself and yawn, please remit three points. Anyhoo, some articles simply do not have major dates associated with them. This may be one of them. But as we've never bumped a four point article, it shouldn't make a difference either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I would argue it is a major date, but am OK either way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The April 13 seems like the most significant date in the creek's history, thought not significant enough to receive the point. A half point, perhaps? :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I know it's four months off, but suggesting now to pave the way: ought Michael Jackson be TFA for July 8, the day of the first "comeback" concert? Not counting over/underrepresentation, which can't be predicted this far in advance, I make it between 2 and 3 points – 1 pt date significance; 1pt basic subject matter; arguably another point as a vital article (he's not on the current Vital Articles list, but I'd argue that he damn well ought to be). However, short of World War Three breaking out or a dead hooker found in the Oval Office, this will be one of the few occasions where we'll have the luxury of being able to predict with certainty the subject of one of the lead stories worldwide (whether it's "King of Pop's Triumphant Return" or "Wacko Jacko's $50 Million No-Show"). It's a controversial article and would no doubt be the biggest vandal-magnet on the front page since 4Chan, but Raul's already said it's not on his list of FAs which aren't suitable for the front page. Anyone have any thoughts? – iridescent 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One point date connection. Period. While it is possible that kids do reports on Michael Jackson, we tend on this page to exclude sports and pop music and similar. If you grant that, there is no practical limit.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Christmas 1994 nor'easter

Out of my own curiosity, how many points would Christmas 1994 nor'easter receive for a December 24 request? –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 18:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it is sure of 1 point for being over a year since it was promoted to FA, and I assume another 1 point for date relevance. I am not sure of the other points - part of those would depend on the future schedule between then and now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One point, right now. Odds are there will b hurricane articles in the fall before Xmas day.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, two points, date relevance and one year FA. With similarity plus/minus TBD.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I know why the caged bird sings April 4 — Unfortunate result

A week or so ago I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was nominated for Maya Angelou's 81st birthday on April 4. Unfortunately The Log from the Sea of Cortez had run on March 15. Since they were both articles on books 2 points were deducted from the nomination leaving it with 0 points, despite the fact that the nominator pointed out that neither African-American literature or autobiographies had been well represented on the main page. The nomination drew considerable interest (6 support and 1 oppose) in a short time because of the quality of the article and the importance of the subject. Unfortunately because of the 0 points the nomination was quickly bumped by another nomination. There is another reason why I consider this result to be particularly unfortunate; this is an article on an autobiography of a living person in her 80s, and it might be nice to feature it while she might be able to appreciate it; though I admit I have no way of knowing whether or not she would care. Therefore I am asking if there is some way we can fix this and get the article scheduled for April 4 anyway? Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I'll take care of it. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The somewhat arbitrary points system works because there's a backup like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving this, from what I have observed over the past couple of months I think the points system works pretty well most of the time but sometimes it needs to be supplemeted with human judgement. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We humans are awesome. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Raul is awesome. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

For the date relevant to article topic, it does seem that 25-year multiples should also count for more than just the 1 point. Maybe 2 or 3 points would make sense? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look through the archives I think TonyTheTiger proposed such a scheme last fall. It got bogged down, as most change proposals seem to. Still, feel free to make a proposal. I think I supported Tony's proposal, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I suggest changing the relevant line to Decennary or quarter centenary anniversary (10 or 25-year multiples): 2 points —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd support it, but I would like to see it sunset at 200 years, because I don't think 10 or 25 year intervals are relevant beyond that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know: We're only giving one point above "date relevant to the topic", and the rules for inclusion in such anniversaries are very strict - for instance, Agrippina (opera) did not get the four points for the 250th anniversary of its creator's death - so given the date is pre-screened as especially relevant, 2 points, instead of just one point, is quite reasonable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. Why not make a formal proposal and let's see what happens?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see... I trust this will do? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Quarter-centenary anniversaries should be made worth two points, instead of the 1 they are worth currently: The anniversaries are very strictly applied (moreso than "Date relevant to topic (1 point)" - and anniversaries 25 year multiples are usually celebrated.

Since we already allow 10-year anniversaries to get two points, I imagine that it shouldn't be too controversial to include a scale arguably more important: a 125th anniversary is much more likely to be celebrated than a 130th.

Motion will be considered to have passed if it has at least a 2:1 ratio of support to oppose after two weeks. (April 16th) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Supports

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
4.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
5. –Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I can't support without seeing the exact proposed wording changes to the actual points; the description above is a bit hard to follow, and it's better to put up exact wording (existing and proposed) so others can be clear on what they're supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently grooming an article, Jerry Voorhis, for FAC, which would benefit from the proposal as the 25th anniversary of his death is this September.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanded proposal

I'm a bit late coming into this, but I think that there are 2 more issues related to date relevance that are important: 1) indirect (or inherited) date relevance, e.g. Agrippa on Handel's birthday, the novel "I know why the caged bird sings" on the author's birthday, and 2) minor date mentioned in the article, e.g. if 7 dates are mentioned in the article, the 7th most important is used for the relevant date. I suggest that indirect date relevance be allowed, for a maximum of 2 points, and that only the three most important dates in an article be considered relevant. That plus Shoemaker's proposal would have the following wording:

Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)

• Anniversery of one of the three most important dates mentioned in the article:[1] 1 point
• Decennary or quarter-centennial anniversary(10-year or 25-year multiples): 2 points
• Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points
• Centennial anniversary (100-year multiples): 6 points
• Indirect date relevance, e.g. an article on a major work by an artist on the artist's birthday: maximum of 2 points

Smallbones (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I could support this, but I would make it a maximum of one point for the indirect date relevance.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the "top three dates" is a one size fits all that would bog us down in troubles. I'd rather leave it to the existing language unless better is proposed. The cummunity has been pretty good about sorting wheat from chaff.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time - let's get the 25 year issue sorted first or it will get bogged down in complicated variations and nothing will change. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw - no problem addressing this at a later date. I'd certainly go along with only 1 (or 0 by consensus) for indirect date relevance. Maybe the "top three dates" could be moved to the (1) footnote. Smallbones (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

And there goes Agrippina (opera). This article got an FA drive to pull it to FA specifically to make sure that we would have a Handel-related opera for the 250th anniversary of his death, but was stripped of the semicentennial points, and just given a single "relevant date" point.

Despite there being only two or three (Rhinemaidens is on the characters in Wagner's opera, but the actual opera is not FA) other opera articles, it was not considered underrepresented, because of a bunch of pop music articles. Because clearly, Thespis (opera) (By Gilbert and Sullivan. Category:Music) and Trial by Jury (By Gilbert and Sullivan. Category: Literature and Theatre) are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - for purposes of judging underrepresentation, anyway - but Megadeth, "Weird Al" Yankovic, Mor lam and Agrippina (opera) are so very similar that they make a coherent group that should be considered inviolate for judging underrepresentation.

The proposal was wildly popular - but supports do not grant points, and so the stupidity of the point system was enough to sink it, because an arbitrary limit on the number of proposals that can appear at any one time, irregardless of merit, means that proposals simply vanish into the aether if one where the arbitrary point system, from which common sense is not just absent, but specifically forbidden by the footnotes, has a higher score.

This whole process has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Why should I and other people spend weeks trying to pull the article together, working very hard to make sure that it's ready in time for the anniversary - with encouragement from Raul - if some idiot point system is just going to sink it?

--Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It was removed from the request page. That doesn't mean it won't be the selected article. Grsz¹¹ 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul usually takes into account people's suggestions here. So, for example, even though I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was booted off of the TFA page due to the points system, it is still scheduled for the date requested. Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul has shown himself well aware of what goes on, on this page. I would have faith; wait and see. If you want to drop a note on his talk page to make yourself feel better, feel free, it is a free encyclopedia. If this page actually determined what went on the page, then it would be madness. The fact that Raul makes the final decision gives us the freedom not to worry that an article significant to a major anniversary would be overlooked when replaced. If your article wins through, and there are not huge number of opposes or a major mess, it will most likely be run. If it does not make it through, but you make a good case for a date, odds are it will still be run. Have faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Like just about everybody else here, I have a great deal of sympathy for ShoemakerH and Agrippina. This issue of "indirect date relevance" keeps on coming up, and I believe needs to be changed or at least discussed in detail. Examples of it coming up include Agrippina, Caged Bird, Harriet Tubman on International Women's Day, History of Evolutionary Thought on Lincoln's (Darwin's) Birthday. It seems that we give just one point (or less) for these. It should be noted that in footnote one, the example of Earth on Earth Day is indirect date relevance since Earth Day is not mentioned at all in the Earth article. So we don't need to be hard assed about giving 1 point for indirect date relevance. I guess the only arguement I have for extending IDR to 2 points (10 and 25 year anniverseries) is that it would benefit several great articles. Smallbones (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Earth Day is a one pointer, 9 years out of 10. I think that the anniversary points are such a thumb on the scales that we need to limit it to a major event in the article itself. I think this page is running very smoothly and we don't need to make the rules more complicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

April 13

White Deer Hole Creek is currently in line to be featured on April 13 with no real date connection claimed. I have an article, Acid2, that I'd like featured on April 13. Since Acid2 has a strong date connection, April 13 being the fourth anniversary of Acid2's release, I'd like to move White Deer Hole Creek up to April 12 and put Acid2 in for April 13. Acid2 would have 5 points because of the date connection, being my first article on the main page, being underrepresented at WP:FA, and being the first article about a test to be featured on the main page in the last 6 months. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

More likely three points, as there have been other computing related articles. Saying it is about a test draws things too narrowly. It is a computer program, a rather specialized one, but one nonetheless.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I count the points as

Date connection - 1

new nominator - 1

underpresented at FA - 1

I don't think this would get the main page points, though - there was a computing article in March and an article on a software company at the end of February. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While I personally believe White Deer Hole Creek has a relevant date connection (April 13 is the 214th anniversary of it serving as a boundary for Lycoming County) consensus has been otherwise and I am OK with the article appearing on another date. This is not my decision, but Raul's, of course. I just would like to see the article on the Main Page. I am probably not the most neutral observer here, but I took a quick glance at Acid2 and it seems very list-y to me for a FA / TFA. I would like to see more feedback on it, but to reiterate am not tied to the 13th for WDHC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume at this point Raul is aware of White Deer Hole Creek and community support for it. Would it make sense to remove it so Acid2 could get some feedback? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. We've never done that kind of thing before. I would think that converts this page into kind of a beauty pageant, each contestant getting a turn on stage. Questionable precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to mess up the works - it was just an idea, but agree it might set an unwanted precedent. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd oppose Acid2 anyway. No offence, but it was only promoted yesterday, and I feel FA's should generally "wait their turn", unless there's an exceptional urgency to feature newly promoted articles (like a centenary or something). The fifth anniversary won't score any less than the fourth. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone

I would like to request that Tropical cyclone be on the main page on June 1, as it has not had its TFA yet. Now i believe the article is elegible for 07 points. This is broken down by

• Promoted over a year, but less than two years, ago: 1 point
• Date relevant to article topic:[1] 1 point
• Decennary anniversary (10-year multiples): 2 points
• Basic subject matter:[2] 1 point
• Vital article: 2 points

Jason Rees (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Basic subject matter and vital either is an either/or. All vital topics are basic subject matter, you see! What is the 10 year anniversary?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

10 years since the start of the 1999 AHS/CPAC season Jason Rees (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a significant anniversary; seasons come and go once every year. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, date relevance/10 year anniversary is an either or again, so it is at 4 or 5 points. I agree the opening day of Hurricane Season has date relevance. So we have vital, one year, date relevance, total four points.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• While I dont dispute the date association I do have a concern of it having a US bias, TC affect may places across the world some of those places season have just started(North West Pacific, North Indian) 1st April others are finishing on the 30th April(south Indian, South west Pacific) with the North West Pacific starting 1st May the Atlantic season has a small percentage(11%) of the overall TC per year. IMHO it should be run 30 April(1 May) given that three regions have an association with that date the three regions combine cover more then 50% of TC for the year. Gnangarra 10:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think either any of the dates mentioned would get it the one point. We tend to leave it up to nominators which date to nominate for.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just chatted with some members of the project on IRC and we would prefer to keep it as June 1 as thats when the Hurricane Season starts in the CPAC and the Atlantic - Also The SHEM may well cover 3 regions but we feel it would be better to keep it as June 1Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's entirely up to you. Just nom it when it is eligible, which is not for three weeks yet. If you need any help, drop me a line on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I had not watched or participated in this page for some time until recently and think that it functions well. However, from watching it I have two suggestions for improvement.

One is fairly simple: add (select one of the following options) after Importance just to make it clearer.

The other is meant to avoid some of the misunderstandings I have seen here lately. There is already a box of Articles which may be requested within the next sixty days on the talk page. What if there was also a box for Recently removed article requests on the talk page? The box could list the the date requested, the article's name, the number of points it had, perhaps the number of supports and opposes it had, and a diff link to the edit removing it from the list. So for example

• April 4, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, ...
• April 14, Agrippina (opera), 2 points, 12 support / 0 oppose, diff

I looked for the diff for removal for Caged Bird, but did not find it - sorry, but I think it shows how it can be difficult to find old material. I know this page is chiefly for Raul's benefit, and I think this would help avoid confusion like this. I also think it would provide some modicum of comfort to those whose requests are removed.

These would be removed from the box after the date requested passed or was scheduled, or if the article were scheduled. There should perhaps be limits - obviously only eligible FAs could be listed, and perhaps only requests which had a minimum number of supports. What do others think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable enough, and time saving in the process: to be honest I really wondered why there *wasn't* an archive of past discussed requests, with them instead going into oblivion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it seems the only way to appeal is to publicly complain. That's not really ideal, and leads to drama. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither suggestion sounds unreasonable. More work for us regulars, in the removed category because no way we will ever get replacers to put the replaced article stats in the new box, still, this is not a high volume page so I don't see a major issue. I'm not supporting or opposing, just commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that if a "Removed requests" box were established, the nominator of the removed request would add the info most of the time. Agree that it would still be more work for regulars - sorry. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal. I would suggest that it also be a template, and also on the talk page, perhaps right underneath the other one. Also, I would suggest that items removed which were removed under the majority-oppose rule not be listed, as the community has passed judgment on those (of course, Raul could still use them if he saw fit). Personally, I don't know if I've seen all the implications of this, and am waiting for other editors to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate poking about this

But I nominated Alleyway awhile back for the 21st, and it only got comments before its removal due to having a score of 3 when someone else added one. Given it's still not the 21st yet and it hasn't been (hopefully) filled yet, is there anything I can do to push for it to get that date once more? I really don't want to toss it in there again because it'll bounce someone else off, and Riven's surprised inclusion doesn't seem to help my case any.

Sorry for bothering everyone with this, just it's been looming on my mind for awhile and figured I'd push for this now rather than regret not doing so later...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems Raul has already allocated an article for that date - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 21, 2009. You could try asking Raul directly if he's willing to change it - I don't know how flexible he is in these circumstances. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi there

I'm currently planning on nominating an article for TFA for the first time ever, and was wondering.....does the two points for age mean that the article has to have been promoted two years prior to the date of nomination, or two years prior to the proposed main page date? My article was promoted on April 28 2007, but I'm nominating it for May 2009 - would I have to hold off my nomination until at least April 29 to get the two points, or can I nominate now because it will be two years old by the time it hits the main page.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Two years prior to main page date has been our custom.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal: Add more sense to "Subject underrepresented at WP:FA"

I propose that we modify the footnote to allow sensible exceptions. Current

“ The category where the article is listed at WP:FA has fewer than 50 featured articles. The categories which currently qualify are: Awards, decorations and vexillology; Business, economics and finance; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Education; Engineering and technology; Food and drink; Health and medicine; Language and linguistics; Law; Mathematics; Philosophy and psychology; Religion, mysticism and mythology. ”

Proposed

“ The category where the article is listed at WP:FA has fewer than 50 featured articles, or a convincing case is made that it is otherwise underrepresented. In the latter case, the voters may optionally state whether they disagree or agree with the claim of underrepresentation, and should a majority disagree, the points are lost.

The categories which currently qualify are: Awards, decorations and vexillology; Business, economics and finance; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Education; Engineering and technology; Food and drink; Health and medicine; Language and linguistics; Law; Mathematics; Philosophy and psychology; Religion, mysticism and mythology.

”

The intent is to allow for problems such as the I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Agrippina (opera) nominations to be dealt with without the drama such things currently cause.

It is proposed that one week be spent discussing the proposed wording, then, if consensus is still unclear, we can vote on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What I fear about this proposal is that it will almost universally be claimed. And you want drama? Just wait until we tell the nominator he can't have that bonus point for underrpresented even though it is the only article about a left-handed Jewish Romanian saxophonist who also plays drums.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Wehwalt here. What, is Design 1047 battlecruiser unique because it is (a) Dutch and (b) the only battlecruisers the Netherlands ever dreamed of building? I don't think so, but conceivably someone could try to argue that. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3ish: Dealing with "related" dates, such as a book for the author's 50th birthday

I propose that these be given 2 points, provided that the anniversary is a multiple of 10 or 25 (which, of course, includes 50 and 100). However, they will not be given more than this. Thoughts? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiebreaker proposal

I propose as follows:

"Adding Requests", Rule 3 now reads:

Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the weakest support for number of points. If point support is equal, you may replace any of the tied requests you choose.

I propose changing that to. "Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the article with the latest date. If the tied articles are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option."

The main point of this is to give a removed article more time to get back on the page. The final sentence describes a circumstance I think would be very rare, but things happen on this page, so who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually can't figure out what the current penultimate sentence means, i.e "replace the one with the weakest support for number of points." Does it mean a) choose the one with the most supports, or b) the one with the lowest value of supports/points? I'd guess it means b) but I can't figure out what makes b) relevant. I'd certainly appreciate a further tweak or two (or have somebody tell me my glasses are on upside down). Smallbones (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cleared that up now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even I can't misread that now. Smallbones (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is 10 days now, and it is 5-0-0 support. Unless there is objection within 24 hours, I guess I'll deem we have achieved consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2. —Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Useful, not a big deal. Smallbones (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
4. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Although I might make one further point: It nowhere actually says that the proposed article must have equal or more points to the one being replaced, even if the artile is strongly supported. Is this a problem? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

   No, that is there. "If there are already five requests, and if the article you propose to add has more points than than one of the articles already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following:". In other words, in the preamble to the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Nergaal (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #9028

...this page is going to get way too complicated with these proposals, and it is apparently too complicated already for the noobies who come here, right? I propose that all of these new proposals be curtailed as uneeded. Sure, the page isn't perfect, but it works well enough. Think WP:CREEP. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I obviously disagree: Agrippina (opera) wasn't a very prleasant experience, I believe I Know Why the Caged Bird Sing was a pretty bad experience for that nominator. Both of us were newbies, and were surprised by the way the rules were applied, and felt somewhat aggrieved. These proposals seek to remove some of the nastier traps newbies fall into, by allowing a little more common sense (underrepresentation), and clarifying a situation that has come up three times in the last month (subsidiary articles). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ed. And it is my experience that if we consider more than one proposal at a time, all will be lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that the proposals would make this page more, not less contentious, in my view. People will be p.o.'d whatever the result of the category voting. If we actually determined who made it on the main page, the proposals would make more sense, but the fact that Raul has shown himself very responsive to articles that strike out through the normal process makes me question the need for this. He even put on Alleyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle with both of the Shoemaker's proposals, but the 1st one would turn out to be too contentious to be workable. I'll agree with Ed17 that we have to make sure our rules are simple enough for a newby to read. My first experience here was about 2 days of "What could that possibly mean?" (Although I also remember Wewalt and others being very helpful). I'll chip in that reviewing and tweaking the rules on an ongoing basis (slow and steady) is a lot better than having a big blowup all at once (which could conceivable happen otherwise). And yes, Raul does handle many situation well when our rules fail, but that is no excuse for having "bad rules." Smallbones (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've come to the conclusion that the way to make this page more user-friendly is to do it one little bit at a time. Make the rules more plain English, don't change practices yet, just clear up the ambiguities and make what we do the same as what it says. Once people are all on the same page, then see if there are consenses for changing the weighting of points. I try to work with everyone who comes to this page, in an informal and friendly manner. Once the rules are clear and everyone understands them, then it is time for things like Shoemaker's two points for major anniversary relevance. Shoemaker, I'd ask you to consider withdrawing your proposals for now and bringing them back once this page is more user friendly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping it would make things more user-friendly if we explicitly stated how related dates worked. That's caused confusion at least three times in the last two months. If we're going to say it's one point, we should say that. I think that while we're deciding to say what it is, we may as well give a sensible point value for it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Timing (relevance to main page date request, select one of the following options)

• Date relevant to article topic:[1] 1 point
• Decennial or quinvigintennial anniversary (10-year or 25-year multiples): 2 points
• Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points
• Centennial anniversary (100-year multiples): 6 points

That is simply the existing language with the 25 year inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As support seems to be unanimous, I've made the change. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is about time. I proposed that both 10 and 25 year anniversaries receive points a long time ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

• --Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• --Smallbones (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
•  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• -- Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• --Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• –Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• I like it and now I have a new word, quinvigintennial, that I am going to have to try and find an opportunity to use. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

We've screwed up the formatting somewhere along the line so the blurbs are getting in narrow columns. Can someone better versed in Wiki than me clear this up? Also, please try to put More at the end of the blurb as Raul does.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you just missed one of the </div> tags at the end of the blurb. Did this fix it? (It looks fine to me, but I'm not super-familiar with how this page is supposed to look.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is good. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong item removed

As I understand it a two-pointer with 9 supports has priority over a two-pointer with 3 supports. I believe the wrong article is being removed. William D. Boyce was not the next to be replaced, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest i wouldnt be surprised if ive made a mistake so feel free to correct me if i have. :) Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It probably would have been better to have replaced the request for 21 June (since it's further than 30 days out and has no supports. That and the 3 points is a bit questionable, on the "basic subject matter" one). Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is consensus that the points are wrong, we can't remove Iridium. Thus, we have to remove the least supported two-pointer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to consensus opposition, we removed Iridium.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It was by the rules, no problem. I have an article, Rudolf Wolters that I'd like to run, but it is not for a specific date and I won't displace any article to do it. It is the only article Mattisse has a star for, and I think it would be a nice gesture.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

John Calvin

Just a heads up for later, as Awadewit mentioned it to me just now and I'll probably forget about it later. On July 10, 2009, it will be the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birthday, an excellent time to feature him, I would think. Perhaps someone could remember to add it then? Thanks, NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: points for Georgette Heyer

I'm thinking about nominating Georgette Heyer for July 4 (the 35th anniversary of her death). She was a British novelist, and hers is the only article on authors of romance novels to be featured. There hasn't been another novelist on the main page since January 31, but there have been several novels, most recently May 28 (La Peau de chagrin). Would Heyer's article gain the point for main page representation (nothing "Within three months of requested date") as there have been no other novelists, or would I also need to take into account the novel? Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we've customarily separated creators/works. So you'd be OK with the main page rep point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

June 16 was selected by Raul, so I removed it

I saw June 16 was selected by Raul to be in the queue, so I removed the nomination and replaced it with the July 10 nomination. Then my nomination was removed someone claiming that it is too early. Why is this? Raul has selected the June 16 nomination and placed it on the queue so I don't think there is anything wrong with removing the June 16 nomination here on this page. Raul placed it on the queue at 7:01 and I replaced the nomination at 8:00. I did read the rules. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the rules. If an article has five or more points, we only accept it 20 days in advance of the last date Raul has scheduled. This is to keep high point articles, which are certainly getting on the main page if we have anything to say about it, from occupying a slot for two long. Once June 20 is scheduled, please feel free to renom Calvin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did read the rules and it said "Please consider". That doesn't sound like a rule. I would suggest that you change the wording. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also look underneath there where it says what days we are accepting. However, you are right, the 20 days was a rule change and we obviously didn't change that language, so I will start a proposal. Sigh. Thanks for the thought and please wait those few days, it won't prejudice your article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see someone nominated Calvin on 17 June. The 20 June article still hasn't been selected, so your "rule" would not normally accept this. So why was my nomination not accepted and reverted, while the 17 June nomination by T1980 was accepted and is now being voted upon? This sounds rather arbitrary to me. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't care whether I or someone else nominated the article. The only difference in the end is that my blurb is different from T1980's. Raul would rewrite the blurb anyway so it isn't a big deal. However, it would be nice to know why I was treated differently on this requests page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You weren't. When I checked the request page, it said that July 10 was open to five point articles, once T1980 made his nomination. So Raul had done some scheduling in the interim, or at least by the time I checked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, but that appears to be completely different criteria. If it is not based on the 20-day count, but when Raul does his scheduling, then I would suggest that the automatically generated dates are placed in bold, e.g.,

• Currently accepting requests from June 20 to July 20 (only up to July 10 if the entry would have five or more points)

--RelHistBuff (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's explained, that it is based on time from the last scheduled date, so obviously Raul's scheduling has everything to do with it. The 20 day count runs from Raul's scheduling. I'm not sure I understand your point.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is this explained about Raul's scheduling? The only time the 20 days is mentioned is "Please consider waiting until there are 20 days or fewer". I thought that meant 10 July minus 20 days. In any case, if there is a automatically generated display that you are using to monitor the proper dates, then making them bolded would avoid newbies like me from any misunderstandings. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the instructions talk about dates that have not been scheduled, and then it gives a range of dates you can schedule for. TFA/R is complicated, obviously, and given that this is the first complaint of this kind we've had, I'm guessing that usually people catch it and understand it. I don't know, if the community thinks there is a problem here, rather than an one-off misunderstanding, we can rewrite it, or perhaps you have a suggestion. I'm not sure bolding will do the trick.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to make the dates bold. It is clear that you are using those dates to monitor whether a nomination is too early or not. Why not make that clear for the nominators? Making the dates bold would remove any of the "when-does-Raul-schedule" ambiguity. I suppose there are not many complaints because it is such a pain to get any proper explanation of how the current TFA/R page works. I am just more persistent! :) The bolding certainly can't make it any worse. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I boldly made the dates bold. Nominators can now easily see what the monitors of this page use for "replacement" criteria. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That's fine. I was waiting to see if other people would comment, but I guess not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to cure flaw in rules

We changed the rules last year at Sandy's request to require a shorter waiting period for five plus point articles. We carelessly left in contradictory language. I propose to change the language under "Adding requests" reading in relevant part:

"The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Please consider waiting until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and allow other articles their chance."

to

"The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Please consider waiting Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such an article, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and allow other articles their chance. (deleted text struck out, new text italicized)

I so propose--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an unimportant note: I don't recall that being at my request, but whatever :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

Agree:

• As proposer.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• That seems reasonable to me. Any article with 5 or more points isn't going to have a hard time getting on the main page, and there's no reason to tie up this page for any longer than is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per Parsecboy —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support; a reasonable idea. Binksternet (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good change...also, though, it might be nice to combine those two sentences (with a semicolon or whatever) because right now it's still kind of awkward; each sentence around them is unrelated (they don't flow from one to another) so having two related sentences there feels strange. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - As one of the editors involved in the brouhaha that lead to the suggestion. The "suggestion" has worked well enough to make it a rule at this point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - a five-point article will never get bumped itself—but it can bump other worthy articles. This is a common sense change. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Of course. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree:

Neutral:

I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional change proposal

If the above goes ahead, change the lead paragraph from "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled" to "Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days (20 days for articles with 5 or more points) that have not yet been scheduled" (change shown in italics) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

26 June

I find how this system currently works a little confusing, looking through the project pages history it states the following: "26 June (Operation Epsom) 2 pointer, with 8 July (Kevin Pietersen) for 6 points - 20 days away"; does this mean then that the discussion to put Epsom on the front page has been disregarded or will it be slotted in?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Raul makes the decision. We won't know until the date is scheduled, unless he says something. And Pietersen is most likely a four point article, though that is small consolation. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it didn't run, but about 90 percent of the articles proposed here run eventually (I mean, within a year). If there are no other dates of significance for anniversaries, why not try to run it on Veteran's Day?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've re-arranged some of the scheduled articles to schedule Operation Epsom for the 30th. (Meaning that we'll have WWII articles on June 19, June 30, and July 4 -- more than I'd prefer, but unlikely to cause any problems in the long haul). Raul654 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say thanks, in future however how long should one wait until requesting an article to be placed on the schedule - once the 30 day prior to the date or much closer to the "closing date"?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinda depends on how many points the article has, a low point article may not be able to defend its spot. I'd say around 20 days would be a good amount of time. Also helps to list it on the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

MJ?

I'm wondering, we rejected the Michael Jackson article a while back, what about running it on the day of his funeral, whatever that is? Are we asking for it? Note that from what I hear the MJ article is getting lots of traffic and edits, so I'm not sure it could make things worse.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

His birthday (Aug 29) might be a better bet ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it still up to FA standards after the swarm of edits that have descended on it since his death? I'm sure there are lots of editors keeping an eye on it to revert vandalism, speculation, etc., but maybe it will still need a quick review to make sure it's ok for the main page? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick glance and didn't see anything alarming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Birthdays of dead people are so blah, no one even blows out the candles. How often do we get to run a FA on the day of a guy's funeral?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that the body has been released to the family. I suggest we IAR this, and either list it for "Funeral date" or else wait until a funeral date is announced, then list the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please not August 29; Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. just recently passed FA, and another user and I were hoping to have him on the mainpage that day to commemorate the 200th anniversary of his birth. I just added the article to the waiting list. María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have they set a funeral date? Raul654 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not publicly. Articles are saying things like the family is discussing it. Now apparently there's going to be a second autopsy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the funeral date as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say funeral if we have enough lead time, or memorial service if not. Since OWH Sr. had the bad luck to be born on the same day as MJ, if we can't make it for the funeral or memorial service, then the thriller will just have to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this CNN report, there will be a public viewing at the Neverland Ranch on Friday, July 3, and then possibly a memorial service in Gary, Indiana (his birthplace) on Friday, July 10. Jackson's family has still not decided what to do. NW (Talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no definite word on when the burial would be. Obviously I don't advocate displacing an anniversary TFA like Calvin ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of featuring Michael Jackson's article this year. Following his death, it was appropriate for us to link to his article in ITN (where it remained for close to 4 ½ days), but that section is the only one intended to approach the immediacy of a news outlet. Displaying Michael Jackson as the featured article on the day of his funeral (etc.) would have the following consequences:

• It would step on the toes of Wikinews and contribute to a false perception of Wikipedia's purpose among members of the general public (many of whom already mistake us for a news website).
• It would draw unneeded edits to an article that undoubtedly will be in flux (and already will require significant editorial attention) that day.
• It would create the appearance of favoritism toward Michael Jackson and resentment/unrealistic expectations among fans of other dying celebrities (especially those who are unfamiliar with the featured article process, who would mistakenly assume that we decided to "feature" Michael Jackson because he died).

I understand the temptation to ride the Michael Jackson death wave (as so many other websites have done), but I believe that it would be more practical (and more consistent with our mission as an encyclopedia) to wait until June 25 or August 29 of next year (by which point the article should be in a far more stable state). —David Levy 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We could always semi-protect the article that day. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a last-ditch solution (particularly given the fact that current events will necessitate that the article be substantially edited, likely attracting many newcomers and other unregistered users eager to participate in a constructive manner) to a problem that needn't exist (on that scale, at least) in the first place. —David Levy 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee, given what we saw after Jackson died, there's going to be a flood no matter what. Do you think making it TFA or not will make a material difference in terms of edits? How many people are not already going to KNOW and will just innocently fire up WP and see Jackson's mug staring at them and say "Hey, I'd better edit that." I suggest it's a swimming pool's worth, lost in the flood.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Jackson's funeral is likely to draw a large influx of edits. The same is true of featuring the article on the main page (just as it is with every featured article appearing on the main page). Combining these events would substantially decrease the likelihood that the situation(s) will be manageable without resorting to semi-protection.

Of course, it is highly possible that the influx caused by the funeral alone will necessitate semi-protection, and that's an excellent reason to not feature the article that day. (We try to protect/semi-protect the featured article as little as possible.) I cited the article's sure-to-be-unstable state above. —David Levy 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno... the potential for a "large influx of edits" just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to withhold featuring MJ on the main page to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Withhold featuring MJ on the main page"? You say that as though there's a default assumption that we'll feature his article on the day of his funeral. I'm presenting an argument that we should feature his article on another day, and I've cited several reasons why. —David Levy 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David, and would oppose any proposal to make this (or any other article) TFA while it is still making news. The reason is that articles are only featured on the main page once, so to feature them at the time is only telling part of the story. In the case of Michael Jackson, wait till the hype has died down, possibly the anniversary of his death next year, when historical implications of his death have been analysed and incorporated into the article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. I wasn't convinced by the earlier argument against featuring this, but Tivedshambo has suggested a good alternative. This is a good chance for Wikipedia to present itself as careful, analytical, and serious, rather than as sensationalist. Featuring a thoughtfully-written article a year from now, rather than a hurried one a few days from now, would show great foresight and self-control. (Assuming, of course, that someone can keep it up to FA status for a year.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is precisely what I have in mind. Either June 25 (the anniversary of Jackson's death) or August 29 (Jackson's birthday) of next year would be an appropriate choice. As an encyclopedia, we seek depth, not immediacy. —David Levy 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose running it on July 7, the date of the memorial service. The community chose to recommend an article for that date with date relevance, Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy. I think we have to look to the integrity of the TFA/R process there. Jury's still out on the funeral date, though, apparently.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy could run on its murder date, November 7. I don't think we're so deep into proceduralism that we can't flex when a current event interferes. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The emergence of a current event is not a good reason to feature an article. In fact, as Modest Genius points out below, it's precisely the opposite. —David Levy 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds of featured article criteria 1e, which states 'its content does not change significantly from day to day'. This is understandably impossible on the day of his funeral, memorial etc. There's no way the article can be an example of our best work on that day. Modest Genius ^talk 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support because it will be a popular move, and will promote the encyclopedia. And because we can. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Featuring a severely fluctuating, inaccuracy-prone article as an example of our best content would not a good way to promote the encyclopedia, and featuring an article that many users (including Jackson's fans) would find themselves unable to edit would not be popular. —David Levy 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I'm with Modest Gunius on this one, there will be a lot of change with the article on the day of his funeral and it's probably better to wait until the final details on his death are available. So, it would be wise to try another time to get this on TFA. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose from main contributor - Absolutely not. In the space of a week the article has turned into a complete mess, most of it will need reverting back to a pre death version with a small section dedicated to the death. It would be more appropriate to wait until his Birthday. — Please comment R² 23:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd rather see it on the main page for the first anniversary of his death. By that time, things will have settled down and the article will be back in shape. Failing that, I would support it going on the main page for his birthday. Pyrrhus16 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thriller (album)

As I said above, I'm opposed to having Michael Jackson as the featured article, but Thriller could be a good alternative. — Please comment R² 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Although, it would also be a great one for Halloween in October. Pyrrhus16 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Much better alternative. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as Halloween seems like a much better alternative. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: The single Thriller (song) or its extended music video Thriller (music video) would be topics better suited to Halloween; the album Thriller (album) has no other special tie in with Halloween but does include other hits like "Beat It" and "Billy Jean", and thus is generic w.r.t. to any date. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree there, the Thriller song and video only make up 20% of the articles coverage, if that. — Please comment R² 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And just noting again that it is the album (not the single or video) that is the FA right now. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. While Halloween is also fine, it would be great if we could run something Jackson-related on the day of his funeral, because that will be the day where most people ever pay attention to Jackson for all time. Since Realist (and many others) have expressed his opposition to running Michael Jackson, it seems like a perfect opportunity to run the only other Jackson-related article we have at FA. NW (Talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support We have tons of other good, scary articles for Halloween, and this is a way to save the main MJ article for next year. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support Album is very appropriate way to memorialize MJ without suffering from recentism. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Definite support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Good choice, and once again props to Realist2 for his dedication to quality coverage of Michael Jackson. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...it was already on the main page. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...apparently I should have checked the dates :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane

OK, it's a mildly interesting article, and it's clearly had a lot of work put into it... but I can't help feeling that having WP's homepage feature the word "Cunt", even as a compound, is rather bad PR. I guess you guys discuss these things all the time, and you must know what you're doing, but still... EJBH (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for us!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

40th anniversery of 1st moon landing

Following discussion at TFAR (ending about June 25), I'll nominate Sirius tomorrow for July 20, to commemorate to 40th anniversary of the 1st moon landing. MJ fans may be interested that the first moon walk was a day later. I know Sirius is only tangentially related to the moon landing, but there ought to be something. Comments welcome. Smallbones (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I had suggested that we consider International Space Station if it makes it way successfully through FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from vacation and consider myself almost caught up on this issue. ISS looks like it's coming along but is not a sure thing. Sirius is probably better for Aug. 1, but makes a good backup. I'll wait, but how long should we wait? Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nom it for both dates and include an explanation that if ISS is ready, it would probably make a better article, but just in case ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)