Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/dates

Questions

• What about the three Oppose in a week business? I'm trying to avoid fan support.
• Do editors go ahead and list on the request page while waiting for a date approval? I'm thinking no, because then Raul might prematurely choose the article.
• What if the date is already taken — would this process also replace/remove prior approved dates, or do we put both/all forward to Raul ?
• How do we archive approved/failed requests ?
• How do nominators indicate on the request page to Raul that they have approval ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the three opposes thing. This should be a consensus-driven process, not a vote. Why not leave it up to the discretion of the community whether a specific date request has tacit approval? Similar to how DYKs are handled? As for conflicting valid date requests, I would pass them both and just leave it to Raul to make the ultimate decision. I'm also not comfortable with the criterion that "The date or event should be recognizable to a large segment of the English Wikipedia readership." The Knights Templar 700th anniversary probably isn't known to many readers, and some requests that I personally would consider valid (perhaps featuring a country article on its date of independence) would not necessarily be widely known either. — Brian (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree Brian, but the problem is we have to have a specific measure of whether the request is approved or not, or the problem ends up back in Raul's lap. We need something measurable to keep him from being back with the same problem, and that allows any editor to determine if there is approval or denial. Good points on the recognizable clause; the idea is to avoid the obscure and really unknown (a product was launched a year ago) — can you reword ? 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, still worried about "fan support" — the idea here is to get the monkey off of Raul's back, and if we don't have a means of preventing fan support, he'll be back to a lot of the same articles/topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Gimmetrow's change addressed the recognizable issue, by separating the guidelines into two ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's understood that any of those bullet points can make the date significant (but not that all of them must be met), I think we're fine. So, Ghana's independence day would be relevant per "it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary)." I see your point on the number of opposes, but I still don't like the idea of hard numbers. DYK works well without such things, and FAR/FARC works through the dedication of volunteers such as Marskell who look for consensus in the discussions (and keep the problem from Raul's table). I'm sure if a few dedicated users became regulars here, it wouldn't be difficult to decide which requests have support and which don't. Fan support isn't an issue that I can see, since there's not mechanism to !vote "support" in the guidelines. — Brian (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I liked Tony's and Gimmetrow's version much better: it provided two different vehicles for establishing relevance. Can I convince you to view it that way and put it back?  :-) The difference between this and FAR is that Marskell is "authorized" as one of only two people who close FARs. Unless we want to appoint someone to oversee this process — and Raul confers them that authority — we need a rule we can all abide by. When the fit hits the shan at FAR, Marskell rules, as Raul does at FAC. We don't have that here. (Yes, I intentionally left out Support votes, as 'fans' would overwhelm.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, Brian, rather than the DYK model (there can be many DYKs), I'm using the old Refreshing of Brilliant Prose model, where any editor knew when the guidelines had been met, and could add the article to FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

<---

I think maybe the use of Approval gives to much authority will cause more issues for Raul than resolve, maybe they should be referred to as being a "community endorsed request" Gnangarra 04:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree — do you want to go ahead and change that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did it — too impatient :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what Gimmetrow and Tony were doing: "The article is relevant to the date. . . " and "The date is relevant to the article . . . " I personally find that phrasing very confusing and would rather see one single list of whether the date and article are relevant to one another. But I'm of course just one voice; if three others are against my idea, I yield to consensus. :) — Brian (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony/Gimmetrow version

Here's part of why I preferred the Tony/Gimmetrow division of article relevant to date or date relevant to article:

1. The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, or it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary).

a. Anniversaries of the founding of a company may be considered, but anniversaries of product launches are generally not.

2. The article is highly relevant to the date when:

a. the article fits a theme for the day, recognizable to a significant proportion of the English Wikipedia readership; or

b. a theme may be a major multinational event or a well-known holiday.

Here's the problem — we also have: The suggested date must appear in the main body of the proposed article.

Note that the above requirement (date appearing in main body) fits for number one, but not for number two, and should be part of number one only. For example, Raul might want to feature an article about turkeys, pumpkins, Macy's, parades, football games, or acorns on Thanksgiving Day, and those articles would not have to mention the date of Thanksgiving. Or, he might want to feature Baby Gender Mentor on Mother's Day, which doesn't mention the date of Mother's Day. So, the "date in the article" requirement should only be part of number one; the Knights Templar example fits into number one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I propose:

A date may be put forward for consideration when either it is highly relevant to the article, or the article is highly relevant to the date.

1. The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary).

a. Anniversaries of the founding of a company may be considered, but anniversaries of product launches are generally not.

b. The suggested date must appear in the main body of the proposed article.

2. The article is highly relevant to the date when:

a. the article fits a theme for the day, recognizable to a significant proportion of the English Wikipedia readership; or

b. a theme may be a major multinational event or a well-known holiday.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a little clearer than the version I changed, and I don't find it as confusing as the older version. It looks fine, so long as it's or rather than and between points 1 and 2. I would propose changing "or it is a significant anniversary" to "especially if it is a significant anniversary" or "such as a significant anniversary", though. An Nth anniversary is just a special case of "a significant date to the subject of the article". — Brian (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The or is in the preceding sentence. I made your suggested change above; should I go ahead and add this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

time limiting

What I think this will need is a time limit on how far in advance the requested date can be. Possibly something like a "requests are currently only considered for next month ie June request can only be listed in May". Then if in the future a group is formed to consider the request they are able to meet(on irc or something) towards the end of the month and forward only the approved date requests on to Raul. Gnangarra 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never been on IRC and I'm not ever planning on going there :-) I don't see a problem with someone getting in the queue well in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this pages is to decide whether a date request in worthy in the community opinion to be endorsed, how can we make a fair assessment of what the community opinion will be in 6 months. By keeping it current the community is better able to access what they consider relevant. As for the IRC discussion that is a future thinking hypothesis, so why throw away a suggestion under those conditions. Gnangarra 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. But a month seems too limiting; how about if we go out three months? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Second thoughts on that; some editors might write an article in June, specifically hoping it would be considered for Christmas, as an example. The community job is only to decide if it's eligible; Raul chooses the article ultimately, so I'm not sure we have to worry about whether the article would still be appropriate six months from now. We're only saying it's eligible; Raul is choosing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No time limits, please. — Brian (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked this page. I dislike it for several reasons - first, I do not want another FAC like process, and that's exactly what this was shaping up to be. Second, I don't want another FA-related page (we have too many). Third, I think I've got a better solution. I've created Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Date_Requests Raul654 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)