Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-16/Features and admins

← Back to Features and admins

Discuss this story

First post! It's not even live yet :D Kudos again for such a great section of the read...ResMar 03:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lambert

I wonder if I'm the only one who mis-read the section about Daniel Lambert, and thought it said goal keeper?! Perhaps he was wide enough to obscure the whole goal mouth? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty and Tower of London? A good week for cool, significant structures. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I was delighted to see such important structures achieve FA. Bravo! --bodnotbod (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

FP "choice of the week" again...

Again, we have a FP choice of the week from someone completely uninvolved with the FP project. I'm really not feeling this. As someone who puts a lot of time into the FP project, this just stinks of contacting someone who is "above all of that" to give an opinion on what the minions have managed this week. Wikipedia is not Commons- Commons has a completely separate FP project. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn. I know this must be a bit frustrating for you, but rest assured there will be enough chances for all FP regulars to be a Choice of the week judge. Look at it as a chance for FP to gain exposure outside the English WP. Also, Tony is currently on vacation, but I have been in touch with him and we will definitely have someone active on en.WP doing COTW for the 23 August edition. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about giving the regulars a chance and whatnot, I just really don't see the value in having the COTW chosen by someone who has nothing to do with the project. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't see why we need to have someone pick their favorites. Why not just present the FPs, FAs, etc. and let people appreciate them without having someone giving an opinion as to why one is better than the others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A fair criticism, and perhaps you saw Tony's response previously. I think that COTW is a good way to increase reader involvement (as part of a wider effort to make F and A more reader friendly). Also, the choice isn't always the "best" FA/FL/FP, but what stands out most to the judge. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I am very much in favour of someone picking their favourite and providing a little additional commentary. And I really couldn't care less where the person who picks is drawn from. It's a nice bonus addition to these pages and provides a little colour. Let's not get hung up about it. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn, I am pleased that people largely take an inclusive, expansive attitude to COTW. IMO, COTW is ideal for forging links with the featured content of sister projects, which also have expert reviewers and nominators. There is far too little interwiki engagement, which is the sleeping giant, the great untapped opportunity, for Wikimedia. Interwiki invitations also promote international readership of both The Signpost and en.WP featured pages. Having said that, most judges will inevitably be drawn from our own featured processes.

Concerning the issue below: I neglected to state to YM that of course he should not choose one of his own nominations. I will include this in the future, but it's almost too obvious. Tony (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony here; I think it's valuable to have an opinion from outside our own processes for the choice of the week—I don't see it as condescending, but simply as valuing a diversity of opinions. Ucucha 05:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of aspects to FPC that could be missed from the outside looking in- the obvious option would be the prettiest picture, but there are so many other things that would make an image a good CotW, things that people not familiar with the FP process would not know about. I'm also not exactly wild about the choice of the week thing, but if you're gonna do it, you may as well do it properly. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Straight from the monkey's mouth

Awww...About the disclaimer...heh Tony didn't ask me to refrain from self-selecting when he messaged me, maybe I should have just been undignified :P :) ;) ....still he seems to have modified my comment to say that most FAC comments generally are about the content, which I don't think is the case, although most of mine are about the content YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to alter your comment, if you feel it significantly mis-represents your view. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)