Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I need your suggestions on these captions

If we're starting with captions at TFA on Saturday, then this is urgent ... I don't have any idea yet whether we're going to get consensus, or what to do until we do get consensus. Please suggest captions on this page for any or all of the images at these links. The first suggestion under each is the current hover-text for each image.

The last two look perhaps a bit long, but I don't know how else you could caption them. All others OK, IMO. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do we need captions at TFA, given that by definition the overwhelming majority of TFA images will have an explanation of what the image is as the first word(s) of the body text? I can understand in some cases it's necessary (like the videogame articles which are illustrated with a picture of the designer), but if it's not obvious at first glance what the image is of, I can't see why they should be obliged to have one. If the TFA is Daffy Duck and the illustration is a large cartoon duck with the words Daffy Duck in large blue type immediately next to it, it just seems like labelling-for-labelling's-sake to assume readers are too stupid to make the connection. – iridescent 15:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Iridescent - only resort to labels when the image isn't obvious, or where (pictured) won't suffice. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That discussion is on WT:MAIN in the section above the one I'm linking. I'm staying out of that discussion, but you don't have to. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, all is explained—it's the pet hobby-horse of one particular user who has long thought he WP:OWNs the Main Page. Life's too short for that particular discussion. – iridescent 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a somewhat unfair assessment. There's been long-standing discussion on WT:MAIN regarding fixing the image situation for ITN, where the lack of captions, combined with the inflexible placement of the image, produces hilarious results on a regular basis. Previous discussions had been shut down with "eh, it can't be done" but now it's getting done. I agree that it's unnecessary for TFA if the picture isn't immediately obvious, and because the many prior discussions were focused on ITN, I haven't seen anyone insist that TFA has captions too. Maybe if TFA chooses not to caption in cases where it is obvious, then nobody will notice. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope that wasn't a potshot at me. If I've ever implied anywhere that I felt the Main Page should be one thing or another, it was certainly not my intention to do so. However, to address one point, informal testing (meaning, just asking random non-Wikipedian readers), (pictured) by itself was not good enough for causal readers to identify the subject of an image (assuming they didn't immediately recognize the subject in the first place), especially for ITN and OTD when the image did not go with the first item. I'm certainly not going to dictate what's done at TFA, but I would suggest that when you need to use (pictured) anywhere in the summary blurb, then a caption will do the job better by placing the image in context without forcing the reader to have to hunt for that parenthetical. I agree that for days when the image is obvious (as in Shinji Mikami) a caption is probably not necessary. My personal preference would be to use the caption just for consistency's sake, but that's just me. —howcheng {chat} 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Too much war?

I noticed that in recent times there have been quite a few war related TFAs, and checking the upcoming ones, I see the pattern is to continue. 

Recent examples since May are: SMS Königsberg (1905), Air raids on Japan, 
R. V. C. Bodley, HMS Collingwood (1908), HMS Nairana (1917), Battle of Labuan, Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū, Paul Tibbets, Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch, Rivadavia-class battleship, 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian).

And upcoming are Operation Camargue, 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, Trinity nuclear test. This seems too much of a bias towards war. @WP:TFA coordinators Edwininlondon (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This point has been raised several times before. It is not a question of bias, rather a case of what we have. There is a pool of around 1,200 featured articles which are available for TFA, of which around one-fifth (240) deal with various aspects of warfare. So, if our TFAs properly reflect the range of featured articles across the encyclopaedia, there should be around six MilHist articles a month. The actual figures for 2015 are: January, 5; February, 3; March, 5; April, 3; May, 7; June, 5; July (so far), 5. So we have actually been under-representing Milhist at TFA in most months. The trouble is that if we don't get at least somwhere near the monthly quota, the proportion of MilHist in the pool will become even higher, and somewhere down the line we'll have little else left. We do try to vary the range of MilHist articles – the July batch includes WW1, WW2, the American Cival War, the 1850s Indochina wars. But in the longer term we need more featured articles on non-military subjects. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The solution is simple. Write one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I shall do something about it. One more question though. Where is the pool of 1,200 featured articles? I can only see the entire list of all 4,554 Wikipedia:Featured articles. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: WP:FANMP is the list of Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. There are corresponding lists broken down by those with possible date connections (which could run on anniversaries) and those without, although those two other lists have usually have entries removed once they are scheduled while the main list has its entries updated by a bot as FAs are promoted/demoted or run as TFA. Imzadi 1979 → 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Bencherlite bequeathed a most useful analysis of the available FA pool by topic area, which is found here. We try to keep this up to date by adding current promotions and deleting those that get on the main page. This summary is one of our main tools when selecting articles. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thanks, that is indeed most useful. What would you say would help most to get more FAs: 1) more FAC reviewers 2) more people nominating a GA for FA 3) more people working on GAs to get them up to scratch, or anything else, like specific types of reviewers like rights checkers? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Reviews are always in short supply, particularly peer reviews, but more specifically we need help with source checks, spot checks, and image reviews at FAC, as there are far too few people doing them these days, and we end up having to ask the same group of people to do lots of them, which taxes their resources. RO(talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Main Page redesign underway

A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. However, in order to see the formatting, you must enable the "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development" gadget under the Testing and development section in your preferences.

In the current redesign draft, the order of presentation of content is being modified, with Today's featured article alone at the top. Your input is welcome. The Transhumanist 13:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I like it (but I'm biased of course, so if there's a vote, I won't vote. Not taking a position on the image placement.) I see from an earlier talk page message that you can link to the new look without changing preferences at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_(2015_redesign)?withCSS=MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage.css. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Transhumanist. I've left some comments there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Retracting "I like it". I liked the fact that TFA was so prominent, and hoped that the things I didn't like would get ironed out in the discussions, but that's not happening. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

1200-character limit

Bencherlite aimed for a 1200-character limit at TFA. I don't know what his range was; I've always been able to keep it between 900 and 1300 characters so far. I'd like to propose that we return to Bench's 1200-limit, after looking at the discussion linked just above (where some are concerned about TFA pushing other columns down), and noticing that when the Main Page columns are uneven, my side is the side that's too long. A 1200-character cap will probably produce some grumbling, but only occasionally, I think. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd stick with 1200, max, myself. DYKs can get pretty long at times. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I almost always got it between 1100 and 1200, even if I had to add some material from the body as well as from the lead if the article was short. I regarded it as a personal challenge not to go over 1200, and I hope it made for tighter blurbs as a result. So 1200 is good. BencherliteTalk 12:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll make it so. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If 1200 is the goal then someone overlooked October 5. 2128 characters is significantly longer than usual. Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Hylian Auree wanted to do this one; I'll have a chat. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line

Why has the Hastings Line article been listed for TFA or 13 October? This date has no relevance at all for the article, whereas the day I proposed it for - 14 October - does (anniversary of the Battle of Hastings). There was plenty of support for it appearing on that date, so I am at a loss to understand the reasoning behind the scheduling - unless it has been recently found that the date of the Battle of Hastings was in fact 13 October (not seeing any sign of that in the article). Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

At a guess, it was scheduled as close as possible to the date of the battle since Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Mary Margaret O'Reilly marks a 150th anniversary on 14th October. BencherliteTalk 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I doubt one reader in ten thousand even knows the date of the Battle of Hastings, and the link to the article is so tenuous that the connection isn't really relevant. I wouldn't worry about it. ‑ iridescent 17:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not positive, but I think when Brian or Chris can't give you an anniversary date, for instance on the 14th, they will sometimes give you the day before (so that the article will in fact run for one or more hours on the 14th for many people in the Eastern Hemisphere) or the day after (same for my hemisphere). - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Where did that sneak in from? Still less supports than the Hastings Line article too. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This may be cold comfort, but note that it's hard to wear any kind of hat on Wikipedia (details on request), and when there are conflicts over dates, in a way, Chris and Brian have an even harder job than most hat-wearers, because the community expects them to make choices that respect certain general principles rather than just putting it up for a vote ... which will invariably annoy people who thought that they "won". In my experience, they've been scrupulously fair and impartial. But again, I understand that, even if you're convinced of that, it may be cold comfort. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
How about pulling it and running the blackbird article in its place. I'll renominate it for a different date relevant to the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is scheduled as TFA for November 25; but if I'm honest, I'm not sure. This whole Featured topic is tenuous at best; it has passed an AfD before, so I'm not necessarily saying it needs to go, but they all suffer from padding. For a general encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, the detail level is far too high, and this article in particular relates to a player who was not even selected in any of the Test matches, he just played the first-class games against county cricket teams. It might survive and AfD, and it might remain an FA, but I'm not convinced that this is among our best work and deserves to be displayed on the front page. Harrias talk 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on the main page, though admittedly that would be introducing two levels of FA. However, it should simply never have been promoted to FA in the first place. The notability itself is dubious. StAnselm (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with the above two comments. As already noted, the featured topic which includes this article is comprised primarily of (arguably non-notable) content forks, of little interest to even the most diehard of cricket fans. With all due respect to their creator, who I believe is no longer active on Wikipedia, they should probably never have been created. Niche topics are arguably what Wikipedia do best, and obscurity is generally not a good argument for not running a particular TFA, but running articles like this is unlikely to encourage readers to return – the exact opposite of what the Main Page is for. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

November 25 was obviously chosen as the 100th anniversary of Ron Hamence's birth. It also happens to be the one-year anniversary of Phillip Hughes' fatal injury. If the Hamence article is removed, it might be nice to have it replaced by another FA on an Australian cricketer (of which there are many). IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I take the view that the article should run. Firstly, it marks his centenary and there will be few better days to run it. Secondly, nothing from this series has been run since March 2014, and given how many of these articles we have it is high time to run one. Thirdly, and most importantly, I'm opposed to the whole notion that we should create a group of second-class FAs that are good enough to have the bronze star but not good enough to appear as TFA. As has been noted, attempts to delete some of the articles in the series have failed. People are welcome to start whatever deletion or merger or FAR discussions they think fit. But unless and until such a discussion results in a deletion, merger or demotion, it is as eligible to appear as TFA as anything else. BencherliteTalk 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point about "second-class FAs", and accordingly, I have started an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948), which should help us resolve this before the TFA date. Harrias talk 12:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There are no votes yet in the deletion discussion, but I'd put the odds at "reasonable" that the article will be deleted, and in a sense, that would be the best result here; we wouldn't have to argue about whether there are second-tier FAs, so I'll wait to see how that plays out before I respond. That was a nice approach, Harrias, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I've voted Redirect and merge, and if that doesn't work, I'll certainly support a FAR (although those wheels turn slower). Rethinking FAR ... I'll support whatever WP:CRICKET wants to do with that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The AfD has been closed as "no consensus". StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2016

I'm asking for feedback on the way this one starts off: "Bruce Kingsbury (8 January 1918 – 29 August 1942) was ...". Rationale: almost none of the 10M Main Page readers will know, or would even be able to guess, how we go about choosing the TFA article. My philosophy has always been that good writing anticipates a reader's questions and objections, and deals with them. If a bio is showing up at TFA on the person's birth or death date, giving that date somewhere in the TFA immediately takes the mystery out of why that article is appearing. But per the current TFA instructions (and per precedent), "For biographical articles, birth/death dates are trimmed down to year only." Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My immediate thought is "why are we running this on his 98th birthday rather than waiting two years?" ‑ Iridescent 20:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
That was Brian's decision, and I support it. Too many things can change around here in two years. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not asking to list both birth and death dates ... it would usually be only the one that matches today's date ... and not usually immediately after the name. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, first off, I understand Iridescent's point but unless there's a 'better' anniversary FA for this date I think we go with the best we have, i.e. Kingsbury. Secondly I think it would be a bit odd to use just the full date of the anniversary in the life dates but it looks to me like Dan is proposing the usual year-only dates after the name and then putting the full anniversary date later in the blurb -- correct? Not a bad idea, as when Nicky Barr was selected for 10 December it wasn't until the very day it ran that I twigged it had been picked because it was the 100th anniversary of his birth -- and I was the guy who'd largely written the article (shame on me for not having nominated it for TFA in the first place)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct (and glad you're back), although sometimes I won't give the birth and death years in parentheses, if it's smoother to work them into the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Very odd page view stats

I just looked at the pageview stats for McDonald's Cycle Center when it was on the main page in July 2014. Oddly, its TFA date page views were 10,957 on July 19, yet its July 21 and July 22 pageviews were 23,510 and 14,618. I can not find any thing in a google news search for these dates. Was there a television special that mentioned it or something? I checked a handful of other Millennium Park articles for a similar phenomenon on the Park's 10th anniversary month, but found nothing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Milowent does the WP:POST traffic report, I am seeing if that expertise may help understand this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys. I can't find any direct explanation, but a reddit mention or a press mention could have driven traffic of this size. They they look like authentic views to me. It can be hard to find the exact reddit thread that drives traffic, especially after this amount of time, as the thread poster at reddit won't necessarily use the article name in the link title. Its not this one [1] which was posted Aug 19; see also [2] from july 19, but only 6 points, probably not popular enough - but the fact that we can find multiple reddit threads about this subject shows that reddit probably likes this article.--Milowent • hasspoken 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2016

Gateshead International Stadium is in three clean up categories. DrKay (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Coincidentally, we had an offer to help with this one; see User_talk:Dank#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2016. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand that it's the day when Wikipedia celebrates 15 years. I would prefer to see something like Maya civilisation, substantial and with a bright image (now scheduled for 27 Jan) that day, rather than a topic of local importance, with a dark image that shows almost nothing. Is it just me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
British railway stations and American (or Japanese) computer games appear far too often in TFA already. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, what on earth are you talking about? There have been five TFAs on railway stations (British or otherwise) in the entire history of Wikipedia, only two of which were in the past year, and one of those (Aldwych tube station) is a disused underground station now used as a film set, which has virtually nothing in common with a mainline railway station other than having a pair of rails running through it. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure where that came from actually. I might have misread 'stadium' as station and conflated that with something else in my head... (I came here looking for somewhere to query the over-representation of video games - eight in the last six months is excessive with another scheduled for later in the month.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As the main page FAQ states, we can only run articles which are of FA quality, and this automatically invites certain topics to be more represented than others (we can't run anything people aren't writing, after all). The main page coordinators attempt to maintain balance by keeping the number of TFAs in a certain topic proportional to the number of FAs in that topic which have not run (if we ran, say, all our articles on civilizations or peoples in one month, we might not be able to have another one for two years).
This means that warfare and video games are among the most highly represented; in fact, in 2015 we ran one fewer video game article than allocated (and twelve fewer warfare articles than we should have). The only way to address your concern of over-representation of video games on the main page is to buckle up and start writing on a subject you consider interesting/important. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gerda that we should have had a better topic on this day. The replacement topic for the stadium – History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959) – is not of FA quality. I started looking at it because its cutoff date (1959) seemed bizarrely arbitrary. I get that this is related to the Shankley era but one of the key criteria for an FA is that it should be comprehensive and so dividing the history in this way seems like an immediate fail. Note that none of the sources divide the history in this way and so this framing of the topic seems to be OR. What's more, the topic fails to be comprehensive even within its own limited terms of reference. For example, William Barclay is not mentioned at all even though he was the club's first manager, was quite successful and served twice as chairman. Andrew D. (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Feel free to try to improve the article if you are really that bothered. As for not being of FA quality, you'd need to take the article to WP:FAR if you are really that bothered. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Or, as a first step, simply talk with WT:CRICKET about their standards. Maybe they agree with you and someone there will fix it. Or, maybe not: different wikiprojects approach things in different ways. And of course, the door is always open at FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Probably better to talk with WT:FOOTY as this isn't a cricket issue. But in any case, if you're not prepared to try to fix things you have issues with, just bitch about them, be prepared to be ignored going forward. This is Wikipedia, you can always try to fix things you have problems with, and that doesn't just mean complaining about it and walking away Hans. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, thinking of another article. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/requests/Isabella Beeton

Opinions needed; I'm not taking a position. Do we want to run that summary as is at TFA, or do we want to insert "(1836–1865)" after the first link and remove the year of death before "at the age of 28"? Some don't like to repeat the birth year, particularly so close together, but "(1836–1865)" is traditional at TFA and mirrors the longer version (with the exact dates) that all WP's biographies use, so the downside of leaving it out is real. The question is whether the repetition of a year or omission of the date range that people expect is likely to bother people more. (I'd prefer to include the birth date of 12 March somewhere in the summary because that answers one of the top questions readers are likely to have, namely, "Why did they go with this article on this day?") - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • My view: insert the bracketed birth and death years to conform with the norm; include the birth date to highlight why it's TFA; delete "in February 1865" as unnecessary repetition of death date. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with BB. Omitting the bracketed YOB/YOD makes it look wrong to those who now expect to see them. I'm not sure that shoe-horning in the relevant anniversary date is always going to be necessary (particularly for trivial links and / or non-round-number anniversaries) but that's a question of judgment each time, I think. BencherliteTalk 19:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll make it so. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


TFA: 24 April 2016

24 April 2016 is the centenary of the start of the Easter Rising in Dublin. If possible I would like this anniversary to be recognised in the TFA for that date. There is no article currently a featured article that fits the bill, and time is short – barely three months – for getting one promoted, but it's possible if we act quickly.

In my view it would be impossible to get the main Easter Rising article up to scratch in the time available; I think too many voices would be in conflict over it. The biographical articles of the executed leaders or other major figures e.g. De Valera, would likely be equally contentious. So I'm thinking of something which would perhaps not excite so much controversy; here are a few suggestions:

  • Easter 1916 – Yeats's poem. The article is in a poor state and would have to be rewritten more or less from scratch. It might be hard to do this in an acceptably neutral manner, but there are potentially many literary and historical sources.
  • Dublin – the city article. Could be presented more or less neutrally, but it's a long article and might be difficult to get it ready in time.
  • General Post Office, Dublin: Very short article that could be expanded.
  • Nelson's Pillar – a substantial article that needs better referencing and other attention. This would be my personal choice.

I'd welcome any suggestions as to other possibilities, but in view of the timescale a decision needs to be made quickly. Any offer to lend a hand practically will be doubly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

One week later: There is obviously little enthusiasm for this project – or I'm fishing in the wrong pond. I'll make a start on the Pillar, and see what follows. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Give Today's featured article some protection

@WP:TFA coordinators I noticed the Today's featured articles are subject to a lot of bad editing

I would suggest that Today's featured articles automaticly get some pending changes protection (if they don't have a higher protection allready) from nomination to 2 weeks after they are the featured article to prevent this bad editing.

This only if the article has another protection allready. WillemienH (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Such a fundamental change would require an RFC. Traditionally, TFA pages have been treated as any article. Any changes which are detrimental to the article are usually reverted very quickly, anyways. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I favor protecting them at some level. There isn't any reason why new or unregistered users need to be editing an article that is supposed to be a shining example of WP's best work. Everyking (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Completely disagree. Yes, there's loads of crap, but there's plenty of people around to deal with that. The prominence that TFA gives an article means it is often the first time new editors will have seen it. If they then see an improvement or change they can make, but then can't make it, what sort of message does that send about Wikipedia? Harrias talk 08:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes protection does not prevent unregistered editors to improve an article it is just that any registered editor needs to approve it. And i think that is a good idea given the prominance and quality allready assigned to the article (FA class) I ws just amazed to see a completely iunrelated picture of sexual origin in todays featured article and a little browse showed that TFA's are vey vunerable to this kind of editing. PS I removed the ref tags User:Harrias added to the title. WillemienH (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WillemienH, stupid mobile browser. Harrias talk 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I too disagree. I've rarely read an FA I didn't feel could use some improvement, whether trivial or major. As most people access articles via Google, I believe one of the major purposes of the main page is to entice people to edit. If an expert sees an error in a TfA article and is encouraged to correct it, the article is improved and – more importantly – someone is potentially recruited. If a casual reader picks up a typo or inconsistent spelling in an article, they too might be encouraged to copy edit others. Pending changes removes the joy of editing the encyclopedia – one's edits being immediately visible. It also puts a burden on reviewers; I rarely accept nontrivial changes because I feel the need to research the change first. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Claims that commercial products are unduly featured on TFA

Just a notification that a discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page, has gently drifted in scope such that it now includes suggestions by User:Wnt that (regarding TFA) "not every article gets to be on the front page; we choose them somehow, according to a bunch of criteria, and right now those criteria seem to be delivering a heavy mix of commercial products". As you probably already know, his particular concern is any video game, even ancient ones, that were produced by a company owned then or now by Square Enix or any subsidiary thereof. It's now a bit wider, including Rihanna songs, and today's DC comics character of course. Anyway it's at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Sponsorship and product placement if you feel any comment is appropriate.

Personally I felt that "not every article gets to be on the front page" implies that some Featured Articles will never be TFA, and as far as I know this is totally incorrect. But I am lacking sufficient patience to explain this to him right now. I am aware that what appears on TFA is dictated by what has been made a FA, and I must assume that Wnt is aware of this too... MPS1992 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I've taken a look. Bees in bonnets are not easily removed, but I don't think alarm or action on our part is called for. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Meteorology articles

@WP:TFA coordinators I am having real problems scheduling these. The title "Meteorology" does not properly describe the category, as every one of the 50 article in the bag is about a hurricane, a tropical cyclone, or a hurricane season. Because such weather systems are seasonal, the great majority of these articles have related dates within a narrow time range, July to October.

In the past we have tried to observe editors' preferences for date relevance at TFA, but this is becoming increasingly difficult when we are largely confined to four months; too many ageing articles for too few date spots. If we are not to end up with a stock of virtually unusable, ancient articles we have to ignore date relevance and spread these out over the full year.

I'm going to schedule one in March, and see how or whether the hurricane people react. The issue will be less problematic as the year advances into summer. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Brian, that makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree wholeheartedly. I did one in February for much of the same reasons. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cosmic/Stirring

Glad to see that Cosmic/Stirring is going to be on the main page; thanks to whoever selected it. Can I suggest that we use File:Cosmic Science-Fiction May 1941.jpg instead of the picture currently chosen? I think the Bok cover is much more endearing. The Morey is criticized in the text of the article as being poorly done, so I think it's not a good choice -- any of the other three would be fine, but my own favourite is the May 41 cover. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris will see this. Also pinging David Levy, who often looks around for good images. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I just switched to the cover requested, whose uncomplicated artwork works well in a small thumbnail.
I also revised the blurb to accommodate the alternative title Cosmic Science-Fiction (whose appearance in the image would be confusing if not explained). If this is considered undesirable, I recommend File:Stirring Science Stories April 1941.jpg as the next best option. —David Levy 04:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
"No aliases" (from the TFA instructions) has been a useful rule so far, with specific exceptions such as common names for species. Mike, is there a way to do this without the alias that works for you? - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we could just drop the alias. The alias appears immediately in the article itself, and if anyone clicks through they'll see that; and I think the natural supposition for most readers would be that the title changed. If a couple of readers imagine a mistake has been made, I don't think that's the end of the world. I'd rather keep this image and risk a slight confusion, if possible -- I think the image is very strong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the title Cosmic Stories appeared on the cover of one issue, with Cosmic Science-Fiction used for the other two. How about omitting the former from the blurb instead of the latter? Given the current text, I don't think that this would result in any anachronisms. —David Levy 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought about that, and I'm OK with it if others are, but I didn't suggest it because the title of the article refers to the magazine as Cosmic Stories. This is how it's usually indexed in the reference books -- see here, for example, and the Tymn/Ashley encyclopedia which is another standard reference does the same thing. The blurb wouldn't mention Cosmic Stories at all, so nobody would be able to tell the title wasn't what the blurb said it was until they clicked through, so maybe it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a draft of how it would read.
Another option is to use File:Stirring Science Stories April 1941.jpg instead. Here's a draft of how it would look.
While I agree that this image is not quite as good as the other, I believe that avoiding confusion should take precedence (particularly given that either choice would be "fine"). Keep in mind that the image is a secondary element (and isn't always included at all). It's a nice thing to have, but not at the expense of clarity. —David Levy 13:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
After thinking about this some more, either approach is fine with me. I'll leave it up to the people who deal with TFA blurbs on a regular basis. Thanks again for picking the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that avoiding confusion is best. Not taking a position on the image selection (as always), but it would be nice for the text in the image to match the TFA text. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hence why I chose the Stirring image in the article; I agree, avoiding confusion should take precedence. If we've got an acceptable Cosmic Stories cover, we can use that. Another Stirring cover would work too. We shouldn't use the alternative title, simply because we don't have enough space to explain that it's the same magazine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The only Cosmic Stories cover is this one, which isn't on Commons yet but could be put there as it's PD. However, I don't think it's good enough to use. I'd say use the April 41 cover in that case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The only Cosmic Stories cover is this one, which isn't on Commons yet but could be put there as it's PD.
Actually, you uploaded it in 2014. It appears in our "The Secret Sense" article.
However, I don't think it's good enough to use.
Agreed. The artwork is too cluttered to be displayed cleanly and discernibly at such a small size.
I'd say use the April 41 cover in that case.
Done. —David Levy 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about next year's April 1 dilemma

Please see the discussion at WT:TFAR#2017 April Fool TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article for April 22

I recently discovered that the the featured article for April 22 is the Hitler Diaries article. I know that we have already accommodated the requested re-scheduling of this article from April 1, but I think that April 22 is even more problematic. April 22 is the first night of Passover, and to make things even more complicated, DYK is planning to run a set of Passover-themed hooks on April 22 (see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Hooks_for_Passover_.28April_22.29). Is there any way we can push this back again to a different date? Ideally, can this run sometime in early May (after the Passover holiday is over)? I am pinging the TFA coordinators @Brianboulton:, @Crisco 1492:, and @Dank: in the hopes that one of you can reschedule the article's appearance. Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this request is reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear User:SchroCat's opinion first. I have no issues with pushing the article further back, though I am concerned that there's a possibility this may coincide with Passover again in the future (as the holiday lasts a week). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Chris Woodrich, the holiday lasts until sundown on April 30. Any time in early May should be fine, in my opinion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This year. Next year it will be different (though, according to Google, not overlapping with April 22nd, so apparently not an issue if we push it back a year). As I said, however, owing to the history of this article and TFAR, I'd like the main author to provide feedback first. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I though you were referring to the length of the holiday for this year. In any event, I agree that we should hear from the main author. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 28 April is the only other party key date in the whole affair, which also looks to be problematic for the same reason as the 22nd. As that won't do, then any other date, including early May, will be OK. Bringing it forward may also work (unless you've scheduled already) but only real date to really avoid is April 20, Hitler's birthday, which would be very wrong. Hope this helps. – SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright, thanks. I will schedule another article for the 22nd, so that Brian can choose a date in May for the HD article. I'll park the summary here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The forged diaries of Hitler were a series of sixty volumes of journals purportedly by Adolf Hitler, but created by Konrad Kujau (pictured) between 1981 and 1983. The diaries were purchased in 1983 for 9.3 million Deutsche Marks ($3.7 million), by the West German news magazine Stern through one of their journalists, Gerd Heidemann. Stern sold serialisation rights to several news organisations, including The Sunday Times. In April 1983, at the press conference to announce the forthcoming publication, several historians—including two who had previously authenticated the diaries—raised questions over their validity, and subsequent forensic examination quickly confirmed the diaries were fakes. As Stern's scoop began to unravel, it soon became clear that Heidemann, who had an obsession with the Nazis, had stolen a significant proportion of the money provided. Kujau and Heidemann both spent time in prison for their parts in the fraud, and several newspaper editors lost their jobs. The scandal has been adapted for the screen twice: once as Selling Hitler (1991) for the British ITV channel, and the following year as Schtonk! for German cinema. (Full article...)

Recently featured:
  • x
  • y
  • z

{{TFAfooter|Month=April|Year=2016}}

Why so many American coin TFAs?

Why are there so many TFAs on American coins? I count 10 such articles from April 2015.

For the record, I like coins and I like the articles in question but am curious abut their frequency as TFAs. —  AjaxSmack  20:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page is what the schedulers have to work with. We have a lot of articles on American coins; if you want to tilt the balance in another direction, the only solution is to write FAs on whatever topic you'd prefer. ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought of that but the coin list is quite short compared to other topic areas. Within the bounds of eligible FAs, coin articles still seem highly overrepresented in TFAs. —  AjaxSmack  20:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
A little under one a month is exactly what one would expect if one were picking FAs randomly. Ten coin TFAs in a year =2.7%; 21 coin FAs out of a pool of 1168 =1.8%. Yes, there's a very slight overrepresentation, but that's to be expected as the schedulers intentionally underrepresent some categories like military history, meteorology and videogaming to prevent flooding. This is very much a WP:SOFIXIT situation; given that in your over-a-decade on Wikipedia you have never once commented at WP:TFAR either to nominate/support something you do want to see on the main page, or to oppose something you don't think should appear, you can hardly complain that TFAR isn't taking your views into account. ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't a complaint and I don't have a "view" on the subject. As I mentioned above, I like reading the articles personally. I just was curious about the high frequency. —  AjaxSmack  05:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Rosendale Trestle

This does not reflect well on Wikipedia in its current state and should not have been TFA. --John (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Pinging Gyrobo. Looking now. What I've got so far:
    • "There have been reports of ghostly "apparitions" in the area, particularly of a white dog.": It's impossible for readers to know what this is supposed to mean; swamp gas? drunken passersby? Also, what's the time frame on this?
    • "can be considered the "most awesome part" of the Wallkill Valley rail line": This is a problem that comes up from time to time even with the most experienced writers: see WP:INTEXT. Quotes need to be attributed in the text, not just by a ref or footnote. Also "scarcely be crossed ...". - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks Dan. Also see the logical impossibility I have flagged up in article talk. --John (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • In fairness, when this passed FAC in early 2011 WP:INTEXT had only just been invented and AFAIK had been a unilateral addition which hadn't been publicised anywhere, so it's not really reasonable to expect the author to have heard of it. – iridescent 2 03:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
        • But logic had been around for several thousand years. A bridge being raised 8 ft while still in use by trains was impossible in 1850 as in 2011 as now. --John (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Good to know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ""the passage of the first loaded boat through the canal and the first train over the bridge which spans it": INTEXT here too, although I'm not sure what it adds to quote this bit instead of paraphrasing, and the same is true for many quotes throughout.
    • "The trestle has been the site of numerous picnics, barbecues, and at least one wedding": Seems lightweight to me. Just IMO.
    • Good to see you back at TFA, John. I'll go check article talk. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Repinging Gyrobo, since pinging is finicky. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
        • A pleasure to see you too Dan. Guess this one slipped through the QC net? --John (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't help the TFA coordinators that nominations at TFAR (and indications of intent at TFARP) are drying up. The six-monthly total of nominations starting April 2013 (taking figures from Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article nominations by month) is 121, 90, 103, 100, 86 and then just 68 for the last six months, showing a considerable drop in the last year and the last six months in particular. There is currently one request at TFAR, and no indications of intent at TFARP before June. Selections for TFAs since 1st November 2015 show that TFAR nominated 26% of articles and the coordinators chose 74%, which is a considerable change from a couple of years ago when TFAR provided about half of the nominations. I think that a discussion about increasing activity at TFAR would help the coordinators. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 09:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been privy to many "editor participation is down—what should we do" conversations in my time as an FAC coordinator, I find it most useful to propose lean processes to replace things that have essentially collapsed under their own weight and are no longer supported by sufficient participation (such as FAR). I don't think it's realistic to continue to expect or request increased participation. How closely can we realistically expect TFA coordinators to examine articles before putting them up? We have two formal processes already (FAC and FAR), but it's no-one's job to watch and maintain Featured articles after they pass. Some of them are in frightful condition, and not all of them are very old. I think it's quite unfair to place the weight on the shoulders of TFA coordinators of determining whether something is still up to snuff. We should be virtually auto-scheduling these except for when someone requests a date. If someone comes along and says, "This should not have been TFA" then the system failed long before it was scheduled for TFA. We need to address those fail points rather than pushing all the weight down to the end of the line. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if I could vet all the article text in every TFA, Wikipedians wouldn't want me to do that. They generally take a dim view of people who try to set themselves up as one-person arbiters of anything. But if someone points out that something is wrong with an article (hopefully before its TFA day), I'm happy to investigate. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no formal quality control as such, over TFA selections, nor do I think any such system feasible. When choosing an article, particularly an older one, I do a few obvious things, e.g. check that links are working, and look for obviously uncited statements, but this process is admittedly superficial. Making 20+ selections over the month, covering the whole range of subject material, it's not practical that Chris or I should do more than this. The temptation, increasingly, is for us to limit problems by scheduling only recent promotions, but this risks depreciating the general quality of the older stock even more. Why TFAR has virtually dried up is another question; I suspect a mixture of reasons, perhaps indicative of a general malaise affecting all WP systems. For example, FAC promotions are currently running at under 20 a month, under half of the monthly average a few years ago. Some editors express hostility to the whole TFA process, claiming that selecting "their" articles is a form of punishment; some are insistent on specific anniversaries (and then don't nominate); the ridiculous kerfuffles over issues such as 1 April soak up energy and generate ill-feeling...and so on. We can only continue to do our best in the circumstances we face. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming Some editors express hostility to the whole TFA process, claiming that selecting "their" articles is a form of punishment is aimed at me, that needs context; you'd just scheduled four articles of which I was the primary or sole author in quick succession, including the two highest-traffic TFAs since Bencherlite started tabulating pageviews. (Charles Domery had almost four times the views of Gregor MacGregor, despite the April Fools TFA traditionally being the most-viewed TFA of the year. There are only four TFAs from 2015–16 at WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED; two were by me, and the others, Pluto and Shah Rukh Khan, are high-general-interest articles with a large number of regular editors able to take part in maintenance on the day.) Stewarding a high-traffic but low-priority TFA is one of the most unpleasant experiences Wikipedia has to offer (and I say that as someone who's been obliged to read arbcom-l top-to-bottom every day); because the pages are of less general interest than the 'usual' high-traffic articles like France they don't have a high number of watchers to monitor changes on the day, so one is faced with the alternatives of either stepping back and allowing them to degenerate into mush at exactly the time we want the readers to see the articles at their best, or going against pretty much everything Wikipedia is supposed to be about and taking effective WP:OWNership and getting hauled to WP:ANEW by every passing crank offended that their personal commentary is being reverted.

As I said to Bencherlite at some point, the obvious—albeit politically difficult—solution is to genuinely randomize the selection of TFA from within the pool of all FAs that haven't yet run and aren't at FAR, with the role of the delegates cut back to writing the blurbs, scheduling genuinely significant anniversaries (centenaries and such), and performing occasional tweaks to the ordering if the random selection happens to throw up three banksias in a row. The Featured Pictures solution, of first-in-next-to-run unless there's a request for a specific date, might also be worth considering; sure, it would push the date new FAs run ever-further into the future, but doing it this way hasn't killed FPC. ‑ Iridescent 15:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly, you are not the only editor, nor even the most recent, who has used the word "punishment" in relation to TFA selections. The four articles you refer to as being in quick succession were scheduled, I believe, over a period of four months, at intervals of 70, 27 and 24 days (you will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong). Admittedly, that's a lot for one editor to handle, and as coordinators we could have been more watchful on your behalf, but do you honestly believe you were targeted? For what it's worth, four of "my" articles have been scheduled since 1 March (not all by me). That's the way it goes sometimes – I probably won't have another for months. As to your suggestions for changes in procedure, first-in-next-to-run looks like a nightmare scenario: someone would have first to decide just how many of the "available" FAs, some 10+ years old, are still fit for purpose – I'd guess perhaps half. Would editors have rights of veto if they didn't fancy the hassle of TFA? Deciding what is a "significant anniversary" would add a further layer of contention. Trying to administer such a system – now that would indeed be a punishment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe there are three editors (maybe more) who have recently expressed concern that their articles have been "targeted" in too rapid a succession. There are only so many people who regularly contribute FA articles. Four or five of the articles I've written have been run this year as well. And trust me, lost pre-WWII films from Indonesia is not an area with a lot of page watchers.
Randomization won't work, as there are quite literally several dozen decade-old FAs that have not and will probably not run owing to quality issues, and selection is more than just "avoid having three banksias in a row" (would our readers want, say, a video game article a week for two years? Timing and balance takes some consideration). I agree with Brian that a FIFO set-up would likely cause trouble. Even with POTD, which is FIFO (more or less), there is still work to be had keeping main-page balance. Otherwise we'd end up with 47 map projections one after another.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Featured Pictures don't change over time, whereas Featured Articles are subject to being updated, and suffer from link rot. FAC standards have also evolved over time. So the oldest FAs are often those in the poorest condition. The number of WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page declined from 1,336 on 1 January 2014 to 1,295 on 1 January 2015, 1,219 on 1 January 2016, and 1,168 on 1 May 2016. So it will probably be around 1,100 by the end of the year, and fall below 1,000 in 2017. The very act of balancing TFA is unbalancing the backlog. I have some suggestions:
  1. FAR should give priority to FAs that have not yet appeared on the main page.
  2. TFA will need to be balanced with respect to the articles that we have.
  3. FAC should arrest the decline of articles being promoted
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add that I have had three TFAs since 1 March 2016 (One nominated by me), with another scheduled for May. None received 50,000 page views, so I am in awe of you Iridescent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The scheduling for FAs should be LIFO rather than FIFO. Benefits would include:
  1. Encouraging the creation of new FAs which would go straight to the front of the queue
  2. New FAs will tend to have fewer problems because they have been written to today's standards and will not have gathered dust over the years – an accretion of changes since the FA review
  3. If issues do arise, then there would be active editors familiar with the topic and ready to deal with them. What I'm finding at the moment is that 10-year old FAs are being run. When they have problems, there's no immediate support because the editors that created them have dropped out.
Andrew D. (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Random big-picture responses:

  • Andrew, the best I can tell, all three TFA coords agree with the problems you point about about FIFO (see Chris's comments above), and WPians generally also agree (silently), judging from the responses at TFA over the years.
  • Machines in general are likely to get much smarter in human domains over the next decade. If machines could take part of the workload off the backs of Wikipedia volunteers, then that might help us fix problems that today seem like they're unfixable over the long term. If we can just keep things working reasonably well for a few years, even if we have to patch things with duct tape and chewing gum, that might be exactly the job that needs doing, for now.
  • Andrew, I do appreciate your posts to WP:ERRORS yesterday and today. Be aware that ERRORS is not a touchy-feely place; if a comment doesn't present something that feels actionable within the parameters of the ERRORS page, it's likely to get removed, without archiving and without much discussion. This page, WT:TFA, is a better place for discussion of recurring issues, including the differences between Main Page TFA text and article lead text. I don't agree with the change you asked for today, because that impacts a preference that's been discussed and agreed to for years within WP:TROP; it's not up to TFA coords or anyone else to veto the voices of wikiprojects. (And if we did, that wouldn't fix the problems at FAC and TFA, that would make them worse, by alienating wikiprojects.) In retrospect, your complaint yesterday was right on the money, but I didn't know that at the time. I now know people I can go to with I have questions about train TFAs, so hopefully the problem won't be repeated. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Too long

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2016 has 2439 characters, not 1150. Fine with me, but the last time I pointed out a long article, I believe it was considered a problem. Art LaPella (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I made the offer to Ian that he could do it if he wanted to. I'm planning to do it tomorrow if he doesn't beat me to it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dan, actually I'm not sure that it should be run in the short term, I need to follow up with Crisco and will let you know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging at TFAR

Quick question. We usually ask nominators at TFAR to leave a note on the talk pages of each contributor, but I'm not sure that's necessary. The reason the pings in the nomination template aren't reliable is that no username pings are reliable unless you do them in one short edit, all in the same paragraph, and sign it. If you come back later and edit it, you may lose the ping ... it has to be one edit. Would adding a ping as a second short edit be sufficient at TFAR? - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Paul

I'm talking about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 8, 2016 and Paul McCartney, and I'm confused. He has only an MBE, but I've heard him called "Sir Paul" many times, and that's how he's listed at the top of the article and in some of the references. Help? - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Where have you got that idea? His knighthood was one of the highest-profile in history. 11 March 1997 if you want a date. Here he is in the honours list (under his real name of James). ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I did want a date, thanks ... I think I'll use that link. Okay, I see he was made a Knight Bachelor, which Wikipedia describes as "a man who has been knighted by the monarch but not as a member of one of the organised Orders of Chivalry". I was trying to get "Sir" out of the MBE, which doesn't work (I think). - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict - you've spotted the issue now, but I like my edit summary too much to lose it) The potential confusion might be that he is (merely) a Member of the Order of the British Empire, not a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE). Instead, he is a Knight Bachelor and so retains the MBE. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. This is stuff I need to understand. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
He would still retain the MBE postnominal even if he were admitted to an order of knighthood, unless it was the Order of the British Empire. Only then would the MBE be uplifted to KBE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Link "Archive" of July

Hello. I would like just to mention that the link Archive in all the today's featured article sections of July (here) points to the archives of March. Thank you for correcting that. Florn (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed today's link. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Occasional semi-protection of articles on their TFA day

At User talk:Dank#Page protection, Cwmhiraeth mentioned that Barn owl struggled with vandalism all day yesterday. The vandalism started early, but the page wasn't semi-protected until 17:54. WP:PEREN (search for "TFA") links to previous discussions regarding protecting an article on its TFA day. It seems to me that pages aren't getting semi-protected as soon as they should be, given the stress for the article's regular editors of having to handle a variety of problems at the same time. What can we do about this? - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this does need addressing. We've fluctuated in our approach over the years. As a minimum, we should agree to codifying move protection. On the subject of edit protection, we can disagree. Personally, I dislike it. TFA is our shop window and it defeats the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit' message if we prevent editing. Editors can always request protection if they consider it needed. The Barn Owl issue looks like one problem user attacking it. I think protection would have been a heavy-handed and self-defeating response. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New York Yankees

I've found lots of issues with this forthcoming blurb. Eyes appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 6, 2016. Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Too long again

All 4 articles currently at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2016 range from technically a little too long to "novels", so do you really want to know or is this routine? Art LaPella (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's routine for the TFA selectors to simply copy an article's existing lead into the blurb space when choosing the article for a particular date, after which Dan as chief blurb coord swings into action inviting the main article editors to trim things appropriately, or doing the job himself. Of course it does no harm to have people keep an eye on progress but personally I wouldn't be too worried about the size of a TFA blurb until a few days before it's due to appear, since there is a process that seems to take of things before we get to that stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
They were just selected yesterday, Art, I haven't had time to do them yet. Thanks for all you do. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Too long

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2016 is 1986 characters. Art LaPella (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Art. Dweller will handle the 21st, and Ian will do the 23rd. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Just seen this. I'm actually making the one for the 21st longer, before I shorten it. I'm pretty sure Dank et al will keep me in line ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to come back here. This was sorted some days ago. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well done

Just a note to say that I've been struck by the excellent variety in the articles that have featured as TFA recently. As an ERRORS regular, it seems there's also been relatively little traffic about problems in blurbs. Well done to all concerned and thank you for your efforts. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Very kind, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Old" FAs with suggested dates in the next few months

Hi schedulers. A quick trawl of reviewed articles in User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page reveals the following forthcoming suggestions:

There are many, many yet-to-be reviewed articles - volunteer reviewers are welcome, especially if you have any expertise in reviewing articles about films, music or storms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Just reviewed/passed Harry Trott and noticed 5 Aug 2016 will be his 150th birthday. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Brian Horrocks, birth date 7 Sep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Tks for spotting Brian Horrocks, Dweller -- we could do a lot worse than this famous general on 7 Sep; I believe the nominator is still active and I've had it on my watchlist for yonks to revert nonsense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. What an incredible life he led! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Zeta-Jones

I don't think this should run as TFA. It has a couple of very dubious sources on it from tabloid newspapers, and obviously is a BLP. --John (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All issues were discussed at the article's extensive FAC. The two "tabloid" sources were deemed legitimate by various editors, and were thus kept. Please stop finding faults when there are none. See this. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Brian is away for a few days (I think). I have some thoughts here, but I'm happy to defer to Chris and Brian on this. Guys? - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Please get it off TFA and delist the article. I made the worst mistake of my life writing this article. Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I will pull, per your request, but I recommend that people try and discuss the issues before going to FAR.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Assuming this and this are the "dubious sources" in question I see no issue with either in this context. The Mirror may be lowbrow but has no history of fabricating interviews so is a reliable source for quotations given in interviews with it, while the Evening Standard back then was only a tabloid in the sense that every major newspaper in Britain with the exception of the Daily Telegraph is a tabloid; it didn't become the Russian propaganda sheet it is today until it was bought out in 2009. (The citation is erroneously given to "London Evening Standard", a title it didn't have until Lebedev renamed it in 2009, but that's a trivial matter.) The claim that earning an estimated £6 million per film is "not supported by the source" is flat-out untrue—the first sentence of the source is "Catherine Zeta-Jones has signed a nine-film deal worth £54 million", which works out at exactly £6 million per film. ‑ Iridescent 16:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Iridescent. Could you be kind enough to post this message at the article talk page as well? Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm back, and frankly surprised to be reading this. Krimuk may have requested the "pull", but this was I believe an act of despair rather than a genuine wish, and reflected the difficult passage that the Zeta Jones article underwent during the recent FAC. We are essentially pulling this on the basis of one editor's opinion of a couple of sources, setting what I think is a dreadful precedent to which I would never have agreed had I not been away for three days. Furthermore, why the rush when the TFA date was more than ten days away? It's not a precedent that I think should stand; I think Iridescent's comments deal fairly with the sources issue, and thus the article should be restored to its TFA date. Opinions please. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I should say something since I might have to break a tie. Being a TFA coord, I naturally blame FAC. (The FAC coords probably see this as a TFA problem. Perhaps we could all find a way to blame it on FAR?) But seriously ... it's a FAC problem. FAC, like many pages on Wikipedia, tends to pull in people with shared values. FAC is history-heavy. The film and television wikiprojects likewise tend to pull together people with shared values. Film and television sources like to emphasize how popular, attractive, and successful people are; these sources influence the wikiproject members. Historians tend to get grumpy about both the implicit value judgments and the sources. No wonder Krimuk feels pulled in two directions. (My personal approach when I'm confronted with similar problems is to try to get people together and talk things out, asking people what they want, and what they can put up with. I'm aware, though, that talking things out doesn't always work the way we want it to on Wikipedia.) I think it would help if we had a look at what reviewers are asking for in articles about modern entertainers ... bearing in mind that if they're asking for something the nominators don't want to give, that means we don't get any of those articles at TFA. In which case, we would need to ask whether that result would be good for TFA, or for Wikipedia generally. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting points. Carcharoth has made an interesting proposal at the article talk about how difficult it is to have a viable FA on a BLP. Maybe this would be a better place to continue the conversation. --John (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In my perfect world, people with different points of view on this would talk it out and find something that works for everyone. So I don't want to push my own views. But I admit some sympathy to both Carcharoth's and Krimuk's perspectives in that conversation. That is, requiring that we have higher quality sources for BLP FACs (perhaps an authorized bio?) might be kinder to the nominators in the long run ... they wouldn't have to piece together so much on their own, and they wouldn't have the constant chore of updating the article as better sources trickle in (or risk losing the FA star). And I don't think anyone should glibly reject Krimuk's point about FAs generally, not just BLPs, because he's far from alone in that perception: writing an FA can feel like painting a permanent target on your back. I don't know the solution to this problem ... you can't blame an individual who doesn't think an FA meets standards and says something about it, because the community feels strongly about maintaining standards. I guess all we can aim for is clarity and consistency, so that writers don't feel like they're being jerked around or targeted. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Authorised bios only? So we should only be able to use the sanitised squeaky clean versions as written by the PR companies and lawyers? Nah. I'd feel cheated as a reader if I just came to WP and found the puff pieces about celebs. Having a bar on BLPs at FA is also a draconian and misguided step. Plenty of living notables enjoy lengthy retirements out of the limelight (in all jobs, not just actors): it is possible to maintain an article at a decent standard through an individual's career or post-career, regardless of isolated hissy fits over the use of an interview quote. – Gavin (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
One editor, Brian? --John (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It looked like one, when I first saw this thread. Others have since chipped in here and elsewhere, and various wobblies are being thrown. I still maintain that pulling as a first response, before any proper discussion, was premature, and that effectively setting aside a very recent FA judgement about the reliability of sources is way beyond the intended powers of TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
My request for the article to be pulled from TFA was a knee-jerk reaction to John's rather pointy demand that the article be delisted as a FA and removed from TFA immediately, and his incessant edit war in which he would go around removing quotes and sticking in tags. Krimuk|90 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Like Dank, I think Carcharoth's idea might have some mileage. I know that User:Mike Christie has had some thoughts about piecing things like reviews together, and I often wonder how we choose which reviews and press comments to mention in actors' articles; it often skirts OR and synthesis, and there is not always an obvious way around it. The requirement of a biography might address those issues for BLPs, which are far harder to source. But I wonder if this is a conversation that should happen at WT:FAC, WT:FA or the criteria talkpage? I'm not sure this is a TFA issue as such. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to go fully down the road of only allowing material on BLP TFAs that was authorised. But, going by my experiences here, the current system is not reliably producing a good outcome. We came within ten days of promoting on the front page and sending possibly millions of readers to an article about a prominent and litigious living actress which had "There was all this fuss about who I was and wasn't dating. I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else. People in the business believed what they read about me. So I decided to move away and start again." sourced to the Daily Mirror, They initially dated in secret as Douglas, even though separated, was then legally married. sourced to Hello!, and the statement that she was the highest-paid British actress in America (in present tense), sourced to a 2002 Evening Standard article which was making predictions 14 years ago. Brianboulton, can you see in the edit history and talk that as well as me, User:Hillbillyholiday, User:Sarastro1, and User:Martinevans123 have also raised qualms about these sources? User:SchroCat also accepted that the third of these needed changed, as he changed it himself. Well done. Are there honestly people in this forum who will say, hand-on heart, that this potential outcome, of running this material linked to the main page, was one we should be looking for? Would this have been our creme-de-la-creme? Schrocat, are you really going to continue to characterise this as "isolated hissy fits" when you yourself made one of the changes requested? --John (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "only allowing material on BLP TFAs that was authorised" ... I don't think anyone wants that. Thanks for your diligence here, John. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So litigious she hasn't sued the people she gave interviews to? We have now lost one of CZJ's own comments about how she saw the media portraying her. Give that man a 'Defender of the Wiki' barnstar! I neither accept not dismiss the validity of the third source: to try and reduce the dramah points I found a new source, rather than just tag-bomb the article because I can't get my own way. And yes, I do describe you having a tantrum and threatening to take a recently promoted FA to FAR simply because you don't get your way over a valid quote as a "isolated hissy fit". There are ways and means to approach things John, and yours was a sub-optimal dramah stirring, I'm afraid.
Dank, I think the "only allowing material on BLP TFAs that was authorised" comes from Carcharoth's suggestion "that featured articles on BLP celebrities are usually best done (maybe only done) when an authorised biography exists?" which would go against any form of NPOV we care to offer. - Gavin (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I should restate that slightly. I wasn't intending to say that we should hew to the line taken in an authorised biography, only that we should be wary of putting together our version of a biography based on scraps pulled together from interviews and brief biographical items and articles in newspapers. As Brian knows, the gold standard for biographies of people would be a book-length publication, ideally by a reputable and reliable author and published by a reliable publisher, and ideally more than one such biography. In some cases you will only get one book-length biography. In some cases you will get none. My point is that until someone else has done the work of pulling together sources, and where the subject is still living, usually working with them to produce a biography, then we should be wary of being the first to do that (in some cases, an unauthorised biography will be as good or better than an authorised biography, but some unauthorised biographies really are rubbish - trying to make money out of celebrity). At a very basic level, there are people that (for a number of reasons) no-one has written a detailed biography for. The question is, why are we taking on that task when no-one else has? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. My view is that such articles will always be incomplete and lacking, and while they may be the best we can currently produce, that lack of a key gold-standard source means they shouldn't be featured articles. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Carcharoth, thanks for clarifying your thoughts on this point. I understand where you are coming from, but I still have to disagree with a few points. Yes, some unauthorised bios are rubbish, but so are many of the heavily sanitised authorised ones: if we are to base our articles on these, we lose all sense of NPOV, and may as well just ask the PR people to write the fluff for us. Should this be the source for this individual? Or this? We have some FAs here on BLPs that are worthy of the gold star, and people will continue to try and push for them - and rightly so, in my opinion. Personally I tend to avoid BLPs like the plague (I only became involved in CZJ article after the first FAC failed, and spent my time stripping out all the unreliable sources, leaving in place those which are entirely acceptable). - Gavin (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You are missing my point. It is not about authorised vs unauthorised bios. It is about people for which no book-length biographies have been written. Deciding what weight to put on various aspects of a person's life is not a decision that Wikipedia editors can really make without guidance from what other sources have done. It is the difference between aggregating sources and summarising them. Take a book-length biography and summarise it in a Wikipedia article - that is fine. Takes 50 newspaper articles and aggregate the information to produce a Wikipedia article - that is completely different and arguably not OK. In the former case, you are summarising what someone else has done. In the latter case, you are pulling sources together to create something new. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not missing your point: I see it clearly, but I disagree with it. If the Gary Glitter biography is the only full-length book (it's obviously not, but let's run with it for a moment), do we base our article on that? It may technically be an "autobiography", but the ghost writer's pay cheque is the only thing keeping it from being an authorised biography. Good writers can produce a balanced article of an individual based on the balance of the sources available. I've written an FA on an individual for whom there are no full-length biographies (two chapters in one book was the largest slice I could get). I'm pretty confident that the balance of that article is right: it matters not that the individual in question has been dead since 1921, or that the DNB doesn't even have a piece on him, we reflect what the sources have provided for us. - Gavin (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You are using George Formby to illustrate 'dead since 1921', not the 'no full-length biographies' and 'the DNB doesn't even have a piece on him' bits (the latter two don't seem to apply to Formby)? I agree that 'we reflect what the sources have provided for us' - but in some cases what the sources provide is not enough. In the case of someone who is dead, the most that is likely to happen is someone writing a biography. For a living person, you don't get that relative stability and ability to survey the sources. Sources appear at different stages in a person's life (and after they have died). Do you agree that it makes little sense to attempt a featured article about someone until there is enough material to work with? Whay then does the quality of the sources not also matter as much as the amount that is available? Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you've missed my point now. GF Snr has no full-length biographies written about him and no entry on the DNB. Should this mean that we don't write an FA-grade article about him? It's a parallel to some BLPs. Dead or alive, all we do is reflect the balance of the sources on the individual in question. Yes, in an ideal world, an academically-written, peer-reviewed work is the best source, but they are not available for everyone, so we do what we are supposed to do on all articles: reflect the balance of the sources. - Gavin (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at the sources in the article for GF Snr, but missing that they were about his son. Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Much of the above, interesting though it is, has nothing to do with the specific case in point and should not be in this thread. Let's return to the issue: despite the extent of debate, my position remains that the question of the reliability of the Zeta-Jones article's sources was properly determined at the FAC which ended on 30 July last. That doesn't of course set anything in stone, but it should be the framework in which further questions about sources are raised. A TFA request should not be an excuse for reopening the FAC, particular one so recently completed. I believe your mistake, John, was to open this discussion by questioning the article's right to be TFA, while yours, Krimuk, was to overreact by almost immediately requesting the article's TFA withdrawal. All this has led to the escalation of accusations and name-calling that decorates the article's talkpage, and a widening of the debate to cover issues nothing to do with the case in point. Why don't we just start again: restore the TFA, look at the sourcing issues dispassionately, if necessary find alternative sources or even remove material which might be contentious – in general, be less combative and more collegial? Discussion of other issues concerning BLPs of media figures ought to be carried on elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we've all rushed into re-scheduling the TFA for this month. Since the disputed refs were either replaced or the text was modified, I renominated the article for another date. It would have been better to appear on September 25, but it is what it is.--Retrohead (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason it can't appear on September 25 still? Since the raised issues have been fixed, there doesn't appear to me to be any issue with returning it to the 25th. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection to that. Would we plan to run it with the article improvement tag in place? I only suggested pulling it and possibly reviewing the FA status because one of the authors lost it, and made eight reverts in an hour and a half, then deleted a section of the article and issued loads of horrible insults aimed at those of us who were trying to improve the article. I don't think this particular article should run unless it currently passes the criteria on sourcing and stability. Given better and more collegiate behaviour from the authors, there is no reason this could not be achieved by September 25. The only thing that worries me is that we are still seeing denial of the problem above from one of the authors. I would have been embarrassed for the project if we were to have run with the article on the Main Page with the tabloid tits quote in place. As long as we are all in agreement and have some level of shared understanding about what constitutes a proper source for a BLP, and can therefore collectively repair the outstanding issues on the article, I don't see any problem with this article running on its original scheduled date or at a later time, or with it continuing as a FA. So I'd say it depends. What do others think? --John (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Knock off the POINTy shit, John: it says a damned sight more about you than any of your attempted targets. - Gavin (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess that's a "no" then. Shame. --John (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
What is a shame is that you consider your opinion to be the one true path, the Ten Commandments and the Word of God all rolled up into one, and you're happy to steamroller over anyone who has the cheek and audacity not to bow down before you. It's just your opinion John, and there have been several dissenters to that opinion, as well as several people in agreement to it. – Gavin (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
John, there were certainly more diplomatic ways to raise your concerns. While you may think that you are right, it doesn't give you the right to treat the nominator of that article like you did. I would even consider it incivility because it is a lack of respect and collegiality. I also think this sets a bad precedent: if you don't like a future TFA scheduling pick, all you have to do is intimidate the nominator until they break under pressure. --Rschen7754 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"Intimidate the nominator"? I merely enforced our norms as I understand them. Nobody forced the nominator to melt down, just as nobody forced the same nominator to throw a remarkably similar wobbly at the first FAC, just as nobody forced either nom to submit an article with bad sources supporting bad material, and nobody forced reviewers at FAC and TFA to allow the article through in this state. Nobody forced User:SchroCat to call me a bastard (in Latin, which I suppose is cute), or User:Krimuk90 to call me an "awful person". Again, I am sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings in the way I addressed this, but our policies and mission are more important than individual editors' feelings. There may well be editor conduct issues to address, but perhaps here is not the place. The question here is whether this article will be in reasonable compliance with our FA criteria, not to mention our basic policies on BLP sources, in the next week, and how we polish up our quality-assurance systems to prevent future problems of this nature arising. --John (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Chris, I don't know if I'm needed here ... what's your preference, if any? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The real issue becomes how do we prevent what nearly happened here from happening again. --John (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One question that is being overlooked: how does the nominator(s) of the TFA currently scheduled feel? By restoring the previous TFA, we would be removing theirs. --Rschen7754 18:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not overlooked ... they're long gone. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This is just a proposal, but how about swapping the TFA dates of Nguyễn Chánh Thi and Catherine Zeta-Jones? Let's say Chánh Thi is on October 1, and Jones on September 25, as originally scheduled?--Retrohead (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent John's incessant butchering of the article with yawn-inducing snide remarks reflecting his superiority over everyone else? Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I am struggling to see how that edit could be viewed as "butchering of the article" but YMMV. This edit from you, on the other hand, is pushing it. I have highlighted your personal attacks above and if this continues you are likely to attract some sort of behavioural input. Why not take Martin's advice and step away until you are able to participate calmly? --John (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you read the above discussion, John, and see how many people are happy with your attitude and behaviour? Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Martinevans123 needs to stop ganging up with John to intimidate and threaten me. It's seriously getting out of hand. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm part of no gang, thanks. Where exactly have I "intimidated" or "threatened" you? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This holier-than-thou attitude in asking me to repeatedly go away (the original writer of the article, no less) just so you and your buddy can get your way is both a threat and a way to intimidate. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Krimuk, you are not being asked to "go away", merely to take a breather and to temper your comments. Your current aggrieved and belligerent tone is making things worse, and losing you support. You may be justified in feeling annoyed, but you should control your emotions; calling editors insulting names is distinctly unhelpful and risks getting you blocked. I believe that all parties in this discussion would like to resolve the issue quickly, perhaps on the basis of Retrohed's suggestion, above, but you really do need to come down to earth, stop airing your grievances, and start contributing to the finding of a solution. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Following the useful discussions here and at article talk, and improvements made by myself and two other editors, I now think the current version would be fine to run with. I hope that provides a reasonable solution to the urgent part of this question; as Brian suggests above I think that is all any of us wanted. I hope nobody else thinks this represents a "butchering" of the article; I would see it as removing some questionable material and sources, some of which were upgraded where this was possible. As BLPSOURCES says, material which is worth using will have appeared in better sources; that which does not is not worth using. --John (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is a consensus here to run Zeta-Jones on her birthday, with Nguyen later, that is fine with me. It appears, at least for now, that the major issues have been resolved.
Considering the extent of the debate here, however, I maintain that pulling the article was the appropriate choice at the time. The debate was heated, and continued to be heated, with the potential for the article to not be stable on the MP date. FAs should be stable, and running an article which is in the middle of a minor edit war and extended debate is poor form. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, as I understand it, I'm only needed if you two disagree and it's not getting resolved. It looks like you're resolving it. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For those wishing to see me gone, congratulations, because Christmas has come early. Whatever featured articles/lists I would have created if I were still active, won't happen now. Surely that makes a lot of people very happy. As soon as Chastain's FAC passes or fails, I'll be fully retired and make better use of my talent. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • And Zeta-Jones? Please, no wavering. Scheduling needs to be at least somewhat fixed in nature. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not all about you, Krimuk. The consensus is to run Z-J on her birthday. If you want to sulk and foot-stamp further, that's up to you – I am disappointed that you didn't take up my earlier suggestion that you kept your cool in this discussion, but there it is. [[Chris, would you handle the rescheduling, as I am in bed sick at the moment? Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting for confirmation that the article will be stable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks to have settled down now, but you will have to make the call, Chris, as I am offline until 23 September. Brianboulton (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's safest to keep Zeta-Jones unscheduled for now. Maybe next year, for her birthday, her article can be run. I'll be at a seminar from tomorrow until the 25th, and if anything flares up in the next few days, I'd rather we not be down to one TFA coordinator who can actively take part in discussions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't insist on September 25, in fact, I nominated it for an unspecified date in October. I don't why it can't go in October since it had 6 supports and the nomination was closed as accepted.--Retrohead (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrohead, I think you've got confused: you didn't nominate it at all, and Gerda Arendt nominated it for 25th September. See this diff. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes I did, the diff was named "re-candidate". Gerda nominated it for a specified date (25th September), and after the edit war broke out and the nom was removed, I re-nominated it for an unspecified date.--Retrohead (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We are not talking about your renomination, which in any event never got 6 supports (not even the original nomination got 6 supports) and was never closed as accepted. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Bencherlite, let me correct myself. The original nomination had 4 supports, not 6 as I previously stated. It was scheduled to appear as TFA, but due to unfortunate circumstances, it got shelved. Now I've opened second nomination and hope to get consensus for a TFA in October.--Retrohead (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that you've now tried your second re-nomination of the article, ignoring Crisco's removal of your first re-nomination of the article. This is getting disruptive. BencherliteTalk 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that Chris is in Indonesia, so his "tomorrow" is coming up in a few hours. If Brian disagrees with his call, I should probably say something. (It won't be anything earthshaking.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Returning to the fold after an enforced absence...I go along with Chris's decision. He has been closer to these events than I have, and I concur that the Z-J article should be shelved for TFA for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

My 2ct: she'll have a birthday next year also, and another actress is scheduled for October. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WT:FAC#New Featured Article coordinators

Almost done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the variety of "Today's Featured" articles, and boosting the number of qualifying articles

Dear @WP:TFA coordinators  : I totally support the rewarding of diligent article writers with "Today's Featured" status, however, with all due respect to the subjects of recent featured articles, we can't keep prioritizing endless articles on Australian army veterans, cricketers, dreadnought class battleships, and video games.

Human experience is much wider than those four categories, yet they each get 10 featured articles a year or more. At least let's require that our featured cricketers are also decorated war veterans, preferably Australian, who served some time on dreadnought class battleships. :)

Today's Featured Article is what draws new readers in. It is the foundational service that Wikipedia exists on. Let's rotate through 24 basic topics like People, Nature, Art, Science, Biology, Sports, Culture, etc. Then when sports comes up, the latest article on cricketers can be compared to the latest article on ping pong players, or pole vaulters.

Apparently we only have 4,000 qualifying articles, after all these years. That is a systemic failure, and we need to find a way to widen the pool of "quality" articles, I have several ideas for how this could be done, but I want to keep this short.

Perfectionism is a curse. We are supposed to be a crowd sourcing entity. Featuring articles which are not quite polished up, is actually a great way to get help on them. I suggest we need a policy change to drive variety. Thanks for listening. Billyshiverstick (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates ? MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of TFA being the "foundational service that Wikipedia exists on", but it may be just the two of us who agree on that (I'm being a little flippant). What new things would you like to try? - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"we need to find a way to widen the pool of "quality" articles". How about choosing a subject that you want to see on the Main Page, and writing some featured articles about that subject yourself? --Rschen7754 09:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Because that would mean doing some work, rather than just telling other people what work they ought to be doing? (To answer the more general point—and I don't believe for one moment that TFA "is the foundational service that Wikipedia exists on", given that on a typical day around one main page visitor in 1000 actually reads TFA—it's the role of DYK to illustrate the scope of Wikipedia, and the role of TFA to illustrate the best—or more accurately, the least worst—of Wikipedia. We can't feature articles on ping-pong players if nobody's written them.) ‑ Iridescent 09:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
While trying to establish the likely number of ping-pong players who are also decorated veterans as a result of serving on Australian dreadnoughts (very low), who also had cricketing careers (even lower), I discover that History of the Royal Australian Navy is already a Good Article. Perhaps we can all work together to bring it up to Featured Article status? MPS1992 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator's comment: I have only just seen this thread (apologies for not watching). For the umpteenth time, may I explain that the coordinators do not "prioritise" articles in the subjects mentioned above. Our base material is the 1000+ featured articles that have not yet appeared on the main page – a figure slowly dropping, as for the past 3 years FA promotions have been below TFA absorption rate. Of these 1000, some are unusable on the grounds of age and depreciation. We try to keep TFA topics proportionate with the topics represented in the usable stock of available FAs, in which some subjects are much better represented than others. If we were to use a basis of equality of topics, we would rapidly run out of articles in the less well-represented categories, which would of course mean we were entirely confined to battleships, Australian airmen, video games etc, as these would be all that we had in the stock.

The following is a table showing the distribution of TFAs over topic areas during the first six eight nine months of 2016. It shows that in none of the subject bolded above did we exceed the nominal quota. Indeed, the general tendency is to slightly under-represent the bigger topics and over-represent the tiddlers – rather the reverse of what is implied at the beginning of the thread.

TFA scheduling January–September 2016 Target share based on topic proportion Actually scheduled + or -
MilHist 50 47 -3
Biology 36 36 0
Sports 27 27 0
Media (films, tv etc) 25 24 -1
Music (all) 22 22 0
History/Politics 20 21 +1
Video gaming 16 16 0
Literature, theatre etc 14 14 0
Transport 13 13 0
Meteorology 11 11 0
Geography/geology 8 8 0
Art, architecture etc 8 8 0
Royalty and nobility 6 6 0
Business/econ/coins 6 6 0
Physics/astronomy 4 5 +1
Sundries (Religion, Law, Ed, Culture etc 8 10 +2
Total days 274

Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks as always for keeping on top of this. - Dank (push to talk) 10:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I intend to keep this table - suitably updated from time to time - on this page, so that the same old discussions about "prioritising" or over-representing certain topics don't have to be gone through again and again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the table to cover TFAs scheduled in the nine months to end-September 2016. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Two Agaricomycetes articles in four days? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sadness

See WT:FAC#TFA coordination. I'll make the adjustments to Template:@TFA, WP:TFA, WP:TFAR, and Template:TFAempty. - Dank (push to talk)

On a related note: I'm working on scheduling for the 9th and 10th. Observant people may think I've screwed up, but I'm leaving the 9th mostly blank for the moment for a good reason ... stay tuned ... and I haven't forgotten the recentlist template on the 10th; a bot trial has been approved to create these automatically. See User_talk:Hawkeye7#Recentlist. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Per WT:Featured article candidates#New Featured Article coordinators, I'm updating the same pages. Testing @WP:TFA coordinators . (Coords, if you didn't get a ping from that, tell me please.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Bit of a "if you're not here put your hands up" (: but works for me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Works for me too. :o) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A script for viewing TFA history

Just a small note for FA contributors. TFA History Link is a user script which adds a link to the top toolbar for viewing Special:History/Today's Featured Article in a Recent Changes format. It is primarily designed for Featured Article contributors, reviewers and recent changes patrollers to quickly see TFA revisions. The source can be found here. Lourdes 11:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Recently featured

December 31's Recently Featured duplicates December 30's Recently Featured. Should I be more patient waiting for FACbot to fix it? Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The December recentlists were done by hand, so please fix it, and thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer(s) needed to help bring TFA files up to date

When Brianboulton was active at TFA, one of the things he did was to keep WP:FADC and WP:FANDC up to date; these are pages that list featured articles that haven't run on the main page, and have (or don't have) a connection to a particular date. Since he retired the pages have not been kept up to date, which is a pity because they're very useful for scheduling TFAs. Would anybody be interested in helping out by updating them? The job consists of going through the featured logs for each month, and listing each featured article on one or other of the two pages. The TFA coordinators remove them from those pages when they're scheduled. Brian stopped updating the pages some time in September, so this is really two requests: bring the files back up to date, and keep them up to date on a monthly basis. The TFA coordinators can do it themselves if there are no volunteers, but I thought it was worth seeing if someone else would like to get involved. Thanks for any assistance with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Helpful hint: when I kept those pages updated as part of my TFA stewardship (building, in the case of FADC, on a very helpful list originally developed by GeeJo), I found it useful to double-check them occasionally against the articles listed at WP:FANMP (using AWB's list-comparing abilities) - that way, it could quickly be seen which articles had been TFA but not removed, or promoted but not added. I would also suggest that doing it on a monthly basis is too long to wait, as then the work just builds up. "Little and often" is an easier way of keeping on top of it. BencherliteTalk 23:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Can't a bot do this? Seems like a lot of work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A bot can't decide whether an article has an important date connection or not. Yes, it is a bit of work (although Raul and Dabomb87 managed without any such list) but I found it worthwhile. I think it's a coordinator's job, really, not least because it's an excellent way of ensuring that you check which articles have been newly promoted (and, of course, which have been demoted at FAR) and thus staying on top of the potential pool of TFAs where there is no nomination at TFAR. BencherliteTalk 09:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've brought the lists back up to date. They weren't too far gone, actually... it seems Crisco 1492 did a pretty good job staying on top of them until just over a month ago. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I had a look, and This edit is fantastic work, I'm sure the others are the same quality. Thanks so much. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Glad to help. I'd be happy to keep them updated from now on, unless the coordinators would prefer to do it themselves for reasons Bencherlite outlined. It's up to you guys. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        That would be terrific; thank you, Julian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
        +1. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
        me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently featured again

FACBot did January 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. But it missed January 4. Art LaPella (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that that date has no footer, and I believe this was an experiment on Mike's part to see what would happen. Now we know. Btw, it looks like FACBot got the italics, etc. right. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Recently Featured of January 19 and 20, should Sesame Street international co-productions ideally be partly italicized as Sesame Street international co-productions? Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, done, and I'll get the 21st too when it's up. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I italicized January 25 and January 26 to match January 24, so a bug report may be appropriate. Art LaPella (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll submit a bug report. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Still happening Art LaPella (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[3] Art LaPella (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Hawkeye7. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to think about re-running TFAs

The rate of production of featured articles has been less than one a day for quite some time; the featured log gives the details. At some point we are going to run out of featured articles that have not been on the main page. The problem is worse than it may appear because some older FAs are no longer in good enough shape to be able to run as TFA without some repair work. We can wait till we are completely out, and decide what to do then, hoping that the rate of FA production picks up, or start running a few repeats each month to slow down the rate of usage. Doing that has another benefit: it will delay the day we have to run mostly repeats.

There are a lot of other changes this would require; the articlehistory template would have to be made aware of the possibility of two maindates, and WP:FA would need to be able to show a "BeenOnMainPageTwice" template, with underlining or some other method. I don't think any of those changes would be difficult enough to make them reasons not to do it. The question is whether we want to have limited reruns now, or more frequent reruns in the future.

I'd suggest that we run 5 repeat TFAs a month. That will about double the time until FAs run out, and we can modify the number of repeats up or down if the FA production level changes. Comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What about, as an alternative, running a TFL in that slot once a week? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I like the TFL option. TFLs get shortchanged in visibility on the main page, and this would be a good way to even out the balance a bit. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree. I much much much prefer the idea of another TFL on the mainpage, rather than a set number of repeats. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
By TFL, do you mean lists? But they're already featured daily on the mainpage, that would mean two lists a day? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Not quite the case -- FLs seem to be run every three or four days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Would the proposal then mean the main featured slot changing between FAs and FLs, with the lower FL slot being discontinued? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I had rather hoped that by time this was an issue, we'd have abandoned the main page as it is and wouldn't have to worry, but alas... I'd prefer to re-run TFAs over additional TFLs. --Laser brain (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. How close is Armaggedon? Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I would not mind using other Featured things in lieu of rerunning a TFA, I don't think a Featured article merits first claim on the TFA spot over lists and pictures solely because it's an article. Unless there is something special about that TFA that merits a double run. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm easy either way. FLC and TFL are different processes, with different goals and results. I haven't worked with either process much before, and I don't have time to start now, I'm slammed with a different project. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather see an FL in the TFA position than re-run an FA, but I don't think the choice needs to be made immediately. This page lists three years' worth of articles. While the reservoir has been diminishing, it's not full-on drought just yet. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
How about running TFAs over two days instead of one when there isn't an anniversary one due? Richerman (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, it's worse than that looks. As mentioned before, a number of articles are not fit to run in their current form, but, importantly, the spread of topics is very uneven. Unless you want a repeating pattern something like Bird-US road-Plant-Video game-Medieval history, it can't be delayed. In my first month of scheduling I was already struggling to find 28 (Feb!) topics with different themes and nominators. I think we need to start re-runs very soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
See here for a relevant post about older FAs that may not be ready to run. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
TFLs are run on Mondays and Fridays and I rarely remember to page down to look at them. I would support reducing to one day a week and running a TFL instead of a TFA once a week. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
What if TFA was reduced to five days a week, and and the Friday article was allowed to run all weekend? Would that be enough to reduce the pressure on this issue? ApLundell (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not make articles eligible to run again after, say, five years? I've also felt that former FA, if salvaged back to FA level, should be eligible.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We could maintain two FLs per week in lieu of two FAs and have the split be 5 FAs / 2 FLs each week. There are over 2,500 FLs that have yet to appear on the main page. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
My preference would be to re-run FAs, and to keep TFA and TFL separate (and by all means run TFL more regularly) as I tend to think there may be more variety, by their very nature, in FAs than FLs. Like Wehwalt, perhaps an arbitrary number such as 5 years would prevent recent TFAs running again. Running over more than one day seems like a reasonable idea, but could lead to arguments over which articles run for more than one day; a potential can of worms? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In 2012 there was a Transit of Venus due and so I asked Raul to run the article as a TFA for a second time on the due day. I then got others who had the article on their watchlists to help tidy it up and we had it in good shape for the day of the transit. Why not let people nominate an article that has run some years before at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests on the understanding that they will get it in shape by an agreed date ready to run? Then, if the article is up to scratch by the agreed date, it is scheduled to run again.Richerman (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I also would prefer to use repeat FAs than featured lists. Because featured articles symbolize the aspirational quality goals for the this encyclopedia, I think they should always appear front-and-center on the main page. If we need to start repeating FAs, then so be it, but it is the articles that provide substance to this encyclopedia and they should continue to be the primary focus of the main page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As RL0919 discussed, the distinction between articles and lists is sometimes very hazy. For instance, my most recent featured list, List of Bermuda hurricanes, has over 7,000 words of readable prose and required more effort and research than several of my FAs combined. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we put too much stock in our self-imposed restrictions and distinctions. Do most main page readers care about the distinction between an "article" and a "list"? I don't think so. Do they care if featured items occasionally repeat? If it was obvious (frequent, or on a pattern such as the same article every year on the same date), then perhaps, but I don't think most will even notice if an item repeats after five years. So alternating between TFA/TFL and allowing repeats after several years both seem like perfectly reasonable suggestions. The ideal solution would be to get more content improved and promoted, so we don't even have the problem, but I suppose that's not something we will solve with a discussion here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've long wondered when this was going to be an issue. Perhaps main paging good articles could be on the table? Otherwise, rerunning FAs is a must, it's already been done with Pluto and Barack Obama. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
GAs are main paged frequently in the DYK slot, often as the lead hook with an image. Any article attaining GA is eligible to be nominated at DYK within seven days of reaching GA. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, but there's enough new and 5-times expansions to fill the DYK nom page already, which I think is why it's so long and articles go unreviewed for weeks. I'm raising the possibility of cutting that policy and switching to filling to FA space with GAs. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What about treating FAs that have passed a FAR as "new" for the purposes of TFA, even if they have already appeared on the MP? Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There's also these. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard Feynman is missing from the list. Possibly a quantum fluctuation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Compare it as it was when it ran on the front page in December 2004 [4] with what it looks like now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I just read the TFL archive pages for January and February, and all the blurbs look very good to me; there's nothing that strikes me as a quality concern. To Giants2008 and all the featured list writers: well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I knew I'd wake up to some healthy discussion... ;-) I may be biased but I think FAs should still take pride of place on the main page, so I'd be in favour of repeating older articles every so often, and the 5-year limit that Wehwalt suggested was also the first thing that came to my mind (doing this means that even though FLs would appear further down the page, we'd see more of them as they wouldn't compete with FAs for the top spot). Of course if we could have a drive to get the worse-off FAs back into condition that'd be better all round. It was also good to see that last month we almost achieved one promotion per day at FAC, the best rate since October 2015, but it remains to be seen if this trend continues. Anyway, I'm heartened that no-one has suggested we loosen FAC standards to enlarge the pool of potential TFAs -- better to repeat our best work than compromise on quality. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Before we decide whether or not migrating TFL to the TFA space (twice a week, or once a week), we should probably get feedback from the FL coordinators. Tagging Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm personally fine with it; moving the TFL up to the top would be great, and we have tons of FLs that can be used. Giants is the one who actually schedules TFLs, but he doesn't seem to find it too difficult to work out, nothing like the difficulties TFA is currently having with their 7/week schedule. --PresN 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To throw an extra idea into the mix, how about also occasionally running A-class articles from projects with those processes? A complication is that many of these articles later go on to become FAs, but not all do. Successful A-class nominators could be invited to propose articles which they don't intend to take to FA. One or two A-class articles a month would help ease the pressure a bit, albeit with the downside of causing a bit of confusion over what's being displayed on the main page. More generally, I've got no problem at all with re-running FAs that are still in good condition: this would provide an extra incentive to keep FAs up to scratch. As FAs on contemporary topics need a lot of work to remain FA class (2004 FA and 2008 TFA Barack Obama being the ultimate example of this), there's a particularly strong case for re-running them as they should be significantly different to their previous TFA appearance. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – For me, it would be incredible to see FLs placed there, as it would be a great reward for editors whose efforts at FLC can sometimes be overlooked. I do have two concerns, though. First, I wonder how the general community will feel about moving FLs up to the top space on the Main Page. I would take it as a badge of honor for the process, but there will no doubt be some confusion from readers. Second, please be aware that most of the lists that are available and in good shape are in the sports and entertainment categories; we at the FL process have our own biases and areas that attract more editors than others, which is one of the reasons I haven't pushed to have FLs featured more than twice per week. Personally, I don't know why the TFA community has seemed so reluctant to rerun articles in the past. Given the nature of Wikipedia and the ever-higher FA standards, I believe an article that remains at FA standard 5+ years after being TFA has earned the right to at least be part of the pool of articles TFAs are chosen from. Perhaps if 40+ articles were still being promoted monthly, I could understand the mindset, but that's not the situation and hasn't been for a while. Allowing FAs to run multiple times would have the added benefit of providing an incentive to keep FAs in good condition, which doesn't really exist at the moment other than from an individual's personal pride. Frankly, I'd be inclined to support both options, although I would like some reassurance that we won't suddenly find ourselves reduced to one spot per week again, or none at all, if FA promotion rates improve (last month's 30 promotions being an example). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Options for an RfC

For something as visible as the main page, I think we need a formal RfC. Looking through the comments above, I see two main options:

  1. Rerun TFAs (some number per month, possibly after a minimum time such as five years)
  2. Run TFLs in place of some TFAs (some number of times per month)

Other options seem to me unrealistic or to have less support:

  • We can't just wait and see. The heavily skewed mix of FAs means we'll be unable to provide much variety fairly quickly; and a great many older FAs are not fit to run.
  • Running GAs instead of FAs was suggested but it was pointed out that any new GA can already reach the main page via DYK.
  • Re-running FFAs that are repromoted isn't a bad idea, but there are so few of these that it doesn't resolve the problem.

I suggest we run an RfC with the two options above, and ask editors to give a preference between the two, and fill in the blanks for the numbers -- N per month, after X years. Editors could indicate they they support both, or oppose one or the other, as well as giving a preference. Does this sound the right way to go about it? If so I'll draft some wording and post it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think these are the right two items to present. Regarding the details: For re-runs, five years is ample time to keep it from being repetitive. I don't see a need to limit the number per month. Variety is already one of the factors looked at for a TFA nomination; re-run vs. new could be another element of that. For TFLs, my suggestion is 2 per week, similar to the current TFL posting rate -- basically just run TFL in the TFA space rather than down the page. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with 2/week of TFL as proposal too. I think we should set this rather than give options. Regarding re-runs. I think 5 years is a good starting point (for a proposal), though am more amenable to flinging this number out for discussion. Maybe cap at 2/week as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
essentially what we are doing by 2/week is reducing the need for new FAs to approx. 22 new FAs/month to keep up with demand, which I think is a good starting point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Guys, I think Mike was just looking for comment on the proposals to run, rather than a restatement of editors' preferences... ;-) There's no consensus in the preceding set of comments for putting TFLs in the TFA slot, that's an option that looks like it might have traction, as does the idea of using repeat TFAs. So, Mike, I think you're on the right track with your suggestion of the RFC, and the two options to present in that RFC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there consensus on the restored FFAs? 11 May 2018 would be Feynman's 100th birthday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think keeping the choice to the two options 5-year-reruns/FLs is the way to go. Too many options just muddies the waters. Dank and I, at least, feel that FFAs should have had significant new input if they are to be selected, not just dragged up to a minimum FA scrape-through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's my position, but I'm not disagreeing with Hawkeye either. This is what Feynman looked like when it was promoted in 2004, and this is what it looks like now, after re-promotion. I'm on board with having an RfC and letting Wikipedians decide, but it might not be a bad idea for the TFA coords to clarify in the RfC what we want to do with cases like this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a discussion of nuts and bolts is getting ahead of things but if the option for re-running TFAs gets up then I assume they'll be subject to the same selection process as all potential TFAs (with the restrictions of any time limit or number of old TFAs per week that are agreed upon), namely that the TFA coords will choose some arbitrarily, or editors can nominate old TFAs at TFAR just as they do with new ones (or is the latter not what you guys had in mind?). In any case, given it's only February now and we're getting ready for an RFC, I guess Feynman would have a decent chance of being chosen for a date in May if we do decide on re-runs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
We're talking about it. I'm sympathetic to concerns about opening floodgates, so a discussion of the nuts and bolts is within bounds, I think. I don't want to say more until all the TFA coords are agreed ... we seem to be getting there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
My views:
  • 1) don't put TFL in for TFA
  • 2) RE "Re-running FFAs that are repromoted isn't a bad idea, but there are so few of these that it doesn't resolve the problem." True, BUT no reason to exclude them.
  • 3) This is symptom of wiki's biggest problem, which is all the reasons new editors are not attracted like they used to be and ever declining editor retention due to all the reasons people are driven away, which has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. HalfGig talk 01:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Main page column widths

Please see the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Main page column widths regarding balancing the Main page and provide your comments. Stephen 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/Archive_8&oldid=1137401461"