Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) m →January 8: typo |
|||
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
:::: oh, my. srsly. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::: oh, my. srsly. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Does this mean you don't understand that you made a personal attack? Then you need to read the link I provided to the relevant Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Ettrig|Ettrig]] ([[User talk:Ettrig|talk]]) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Does this mean you don't understand that you made a personal attack? Then you need to read the link I provided to the relevant Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Ettrig|Ettrig]] ([[User talk:Ettrig|talk]]) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::Sandy made no personal attack here AFAICS, Ettrig; what specifically do you assert is an attack? That you have little experience? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You did spot a clear one. The first two sentences of the linked policy say: ''Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.'' Another is more subtle and more vicious. The thought that my editing might have caused remaining harm even after having been adjusted. This is not comment on content, it is comment on contributor. --[[User:Ettrig|Ettrig]] ([[User talk:Ettrig|talk]]) 10:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I've read the policy, thanks, and you're over-reacting - simply saying that you have little experience is not an attack. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 14:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I repeat, the first descriptive sentence of the policy is ''Comment on content, not on the contributor.'' Are we interpreting these words differently or do you not recognize that SandyGeorgia commented on my person and not on the content? Sandy points out that I have ''unique views on FAC and TFA''. In my view this is a clear case of commenting on the person. Nothing is said here about what the article contains or what changes I made to it. I am simply pointing out a breach of Wikipedia policy. Why do you call this overreacting? --[[User:Ettrig|Ettrig]] ([[User talk:Ettrig|talk]]) 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Calling a spade a spade in not an attack and neither is saying you have little experience. If someone pointed out I have little experience with compiling bots that wouldn't be a personal attack either. Interpreting it as such is nonsensical and repeating yourself won't change that. Stop wikilawyering. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: Is this still going on here? I suggest it would be better to remove all of this to a talk page (either WT:TFAR or mine or Ettrig's) so that he can be properly educated without taking up more space here. IF that is done, then I'll go look for the diff where he himself mentioned that he has little experience in this area, but this faulty assertion of a personal attack is disrupting the discussion here that we should be having, which is why articles are being pushed up the TFA line when they have issues, and why this page has fallen into decline since this trend was started-- by Ettrig. The page is becoming useless because of the trend started towards only TFAing high page view FAs, and a faulty assertion of a personal attack is additionally taking up bandwidth there. Take it outside. Does no one have anything to say about 15,000 word FAs on the mainpage, where most readers can't load the file? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's two sides here. Sandy rightfully would like to hear from a significant contributor before this is main page'd. However, simply having non-mainstream views on TFA is far from your typical warning sign. Sandy, you know I love you, but let's not assume too much here, okay? [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::There's two sides here. Sandy rightfully would like to hear from a significant contributor before this is main page'd. However, simply having non-mainstream views on TFA is far from your typical warning sign. Sandy, you know I love you, but let's not assume too much here, okay? [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:50, 31 December 2011
Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
|
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from November 2 to December 2.
The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from November 2 to December 2. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection.
Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns.
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Article | Reason | Primary author(s) | Added by (if different) |
November 3 | 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election | Why | Elli | |
November 6 | Russian battleship Poltava (1894) | Why | harizotoh9 | |
November 8 | Mario Party DS | Why | The Green Star Collector | |
November 11 | Mells War Memorial | Why | HJ Mitchell | Ham II |
November 17 | SMS Friedrich Carl | Why | Parsecboy | Peacemaker67 |
November 18 | Donkey Kong Country | Why | TheJoebro64, Jaguar | TheJoebro64 |
November 19 | My Little Love | Why | MaranoFan | |
November 21 | MLS Cup 1999 | Why | SounderBruce | |
November 22 | Donkey Kong 64 | Why | czar | |
November 27 | Interstate 182 | Why | SounderBruce | |
November 28 | Battle of Cane Hill | Why | Hog Farm | |
December 2 | Windswept Adan | Why | Joeyquism | |
December 3 | PlayStation (console) | Why | Jaguar | Dank |
December 8 | You Belong with Me | Why | Ippantekina | Sheila1988 |
December 10 | Shovel Knight Showdown | Why | The Night Watch | Gerda Arendt |
December 13 | Taylor Swift | Why (rerun, first TFA was August 23, 2019) | Ronherry | FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS |
December 19 | SMS Niobe | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
December 20 | Sonic the Hedgehog 2 | Why | TheJoebro64 | Sheila1988 |
2025: | ||||
January 1 | York Park | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
January 4 | Liza Soberano | Why | Pseud 14 | |
January 6 | Maria Trubnikova | Why | Ganesha811 | Dank |
January 8 | Elvis Presley | Why | PL290, DocKino, Rikstar | Dank |
January 9 | Title (album) | Why | MaranoFan | |
January 22 | Caitlin Clark | Why | Sportzeditz | Dank |
January 27 | The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
January 28 | Lewis W. Green | Why | PCN02WPS | |
January 29 | Dominik Hašek | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
March 10 | Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number | Why | NegativeMP1 | |
March 12 | 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season | Why | SounderBruce | |
March 18 | Edward the Martyr | Why | Amitchell125 | Sheila1988 |
March 26 | Pierre Boulez | Why | Dmass | Sheila1988 |
April 1 | Pig-faced women | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
April 12 | Dolly de Leon | Why | Pseud 14 | |
April 15 | Lady Blue (TV series) | Why | Aoba47 | Harizotoh9 |
April 18 | Battle of Poison Spring | Why | HF | |
April 24 | "I'm God" | Why | Skyshifter | |
April 25 | 1925 FA Cup Final | Why | Kosack | Dank |
May | 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015) | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
May 6 | Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
May 10 | Ben&Ben | Why | Pseud 14 | |
May 11 | Mother (Meghan Trainor song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
June | The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished | Why | iridescent | Harizotoh9 |
June 3 | David Evans (RAAF officer) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 8 | Barbara Bush | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
July 1 | Maple syrup | Why | Nikkimaria | Dank |
July 7 | Gustav Mahler | Why | Brianboulton | Dank |
July 14 | William Hanna | Why | Rlevse | Dank |
July 26 | Liz Truss | Why | Tim O'Doherty | Tim O'Doherty and Dank |
July 29 | Tiger | Why | LittleJerry | |
July 31 | Battle of Warsaw (1705) | Why | Imonoz | Harizotoh9 |
August 4 | Death of Ms Dhu | Why | Freikorp | AirshipJungleman29 |
August 23 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 30 | Late Registration | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 2 | 1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 6 | Hurricane Ophelia (2005) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 20 | Myst V: End of Ages | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 30 or October 1 | Hoover Dam | Why | NortyNort, Wehwalt | Dank |
October 1 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
October 3 | Spaghetti House siege | Why | SchroCat | Dank |
October 10 | Tragic Kingdom | Why | EA Swyer | Harizotoh9 |
October 16 | Angela Lansbury | Why | Midnightblueowl | MisawaSakura |
October 18 | Royal Artillery Memorial | Why | HJ Mitchell | Ham II |
November 1 | Matanikau Offensive | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 19 | Water Under the Bridge | Why | MaranoFan | |
November 20 | Nuremberg trials | Why | buidhe | harizotoh9 |
November 21 | Canoe River train crash | Why | Wehwalt | |
December 22 or 25 | A Very Trainor Christmas | Why | MaranoFan | MaranoFan |
December 25 | Marcus Trescothick | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
2026: | ||||
January 27 | History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
January 28 | Lewis W. Green | Why | PCN02WPS | Harizotoh9 |
May 5 | Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
June 8 | Types Riot | Why | Z1720 | |
July 23 | Veronica Clare | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 20 | Persona (series) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November | The Story of Miss Moppet | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 11 | U.S. Route 101 | Why | SounderBruce | |
October 15 | Easy on Me | Why | MaranoFan | |
December 21 | Fredonian Rebellion | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
December 22 | Title (song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
2027: | ||||
June | 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) | Why | ||
August 25 | Genghis Khan | Why | AirshipJungleman29 |
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific 1 | Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo | 0 | promoted over 2 years ago | 8 | 5 |
Nonspecific 2 | Loggerhead sea turtle | promoted over 1 year ago | 1 | ||
January 8 | Elvis Presley | 6 | anniversary of birth, vital article, 1 yr FA | 7 | 1 |
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.
Nonspecific date 1
"Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" is the tenth episode of the first season of the animated television series South Park. It originally aired on Comedy Central in the United States on December 17, 1997. In the episode, the Jewish character Kyle feels excluded from the rest of town during Christmas, and is comforted by Mr. Hankey, a talking and singing Christmas poo. Mr. Hankey does not come alive in front of anyone else, so everyone begins to think Kyle is losing his mind. Meanwhile, the townspeople remove all religious aspects of Christmas from South Park in order to remain politically correct and inoffensive. The episode was written and directed by series co-founders Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and was rated TV-MA L in the United States. The Mr. Hankey character was based on an idea from Parker's childhood; when Parker and Stone first conceived the South Park series, they wanted to make Mr. Hankey the lead character. Heavily influenced by the Peanuts Christmas special A Charlie Brown Christmas, "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" was the first South Park Christmas special and first musical episode. It served as a satire of political correctness and religious sensitivity. Parker and Stone felt the episode elevated South Park to a new level of popularity and relevance. (more…)
2 points - promoted over 2 years ago. I think it would be really fun if we had this article up for TFA for sometime during the christmas season. It's probably not too appropriate for the day itself, but would be perfect for that between-christmas-and-new-year no man's land when everyone has eaten and drunk far too much for too long, lost track of what day of the week it even is and has become sick of being at home with their family. Howdy Ho! Coolug (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
0 points until Jan 21. + 2 for old, - 2 for collission with chanukha, another animated TV episode. --Ettrig (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support – As Coolug says, probably a bit strong for the day itself, but probably good for 29 December or thereabouts. Howdy Ho! —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support - dang, anything which convinces people to eat more fibre is a plus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Mr. Hankey character was based on an idea from Parker's childhood; when Parker and Stone first conceived the South Park series, they wanted to make Mr. Hankey the lead character. Bit of a non-sequitur there. What was the idea from Parker's childhood? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to the article, the idea was Parker's father saying that if he did not flush the toilet, the poo, "Mr. Hankey", would come out of the toilet and kill him. 188.219.153.118 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support - It will be a perfect for Dec 29.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - I know this is probably a completely irrelevant vote, but this is really pretty low, even by WP's standards. Oppose putting it up in any connection with the holiday itself... maybe in June or something. Juliancolton (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for 25th, weak support for other dates. An optimist on the run! 08:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, considering this article is very likely not going to be scheduled for Dec 25th but on another date (if it is scheduled at all) should this not be counted as a support? I note the box at present shows 4 yays and 2 nays. Coolug (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support for 25th, support for other dates. If Unicode 6.0 can host poo, we can too. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Extra Pointsfor Christmas Day. Alarbus (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)- Weak Oppose. I appreciate the effort that went into producing this article, but do we really have to feature such inane topics every week (TV shows, video games, and hurricanes)? It makes me slightly depressed. Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support for the 25th. Nothing wrong with showing a bit of humour. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for Dec 25 or anything too close to Christmas, fine for another day, redundant to explain why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those sayings things like "oppose dec 25 support other days" - how should these votes be counted? In the opening I have said that I agree it isn't suitable for dec 25, this is also a non date specific nomination. It's not a nomination for christmas day. Coolug (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support for the 25th or any date. —Ed!(talk) 01:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing as of the four opposes counted so far, only 2 are actual opposes, and the other 2 are just opposed to it being on christmas day itself, could the tally be amended to reflect that now the dec 25 tfa has been selected? Coolug (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I nominated this with the intention of it being TFA for either some time in the days leading up to christmas or the xmas-new-year no man's land of 27-30 dec when it would have been pretty appropriate. However, seeing as the tfa's slots for the rest of december have now been filled it wouldn't really be the end of the world if this wasn't stuck on the main page. I nominated it for a bit of fun, but the fun would be a bit pointless if it was tfa in january - it's a christmas poo not a new year poo! I'm not going to withdraw the nomination or anything but I won't be offended if it is removed by any other editors either. Howdy ho! Coolug (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your nomination was POINT-y. Alarbus (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. It's true that it was your post that inspired me to nominate this article, but I wasn't trying to make a silly point or offend the worlds christians! I just thought that in spite of your comments, it would actually have been pretty cool to have this article on the main page sometime during the christmas season. Coolug (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Think again and maybe they'll pay you the big bucks. Alarbus (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a riddle? I'm not very good at riddles. Coolug (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is this article going to be on the main page sometime during the christmas season? Alarbus (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently not, but there's always next year. Howdy-ho! —Cliftonian (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- shit happens... Alarbus (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently not, but there's always next year. Howdy-ho! —Cliftonian (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is this article going to be on the main page sometime during the christmas season? Alarbus (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a riddle? I'm not very good at riddles. Coolug (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Think again and maybe they'll pay you the big bucks. Alarbus (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. It's true that it was your post that inspired me to nominate this article, but I wasn't trying to make a silly point or offend the worlds christians! I just thought that in spite of your comments, it would actually have been pretty cool to have this article on the main page sometime during the christmas season. Coolug (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose...the Plot section has nary a single inline cite...the subject matter is immaterial to me and I remember this episode well when it first aired, but the article itself needs help.--MONGO 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Though I haven't checked for exceptions in this case, as a general rule plot sections are not required to have inline cites - it's assumed that the plot is from the episode/book/movie/whatever itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment – this nomination should probably be taken down now, the next open date is 1 January and attempting to imply a connection to Christmas this late on seems to me a little bit tenuous. Perhaps this nomination should now wait until next year? —Cliftonian (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - If you nominate it on December 17, next year, you could get a point for day relevance without having to nominate it on Christmas. With ancient FA status, that'd be three points if you're not ninja'd by another TV show. Emmy Altava 04:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Nonspecific date 2
The loggerhead sea turtle is an oceanic turtle distributed throughout the world. An adult weighs around 135 kilograms (298 lb), with the largest specimens weighing in at more than 454 kilograms (1,001 lb). The skin ranges from yellow to brown in color, and the shell is typically reddish-brown. Found in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans as well as the Mediterranean Sea, the loggerhead sea turtle spends most of its life in saltwater and estuarine habitats, with females briefly coming ashore to lay eggs. The loggerhead sea turtle has a low reproductive rate and a lifespan of 47–67 years. Omnivorous, the species feeds mainly on bottom dwelling invertebrates. Its large and powerful jaws serve as an effective tool in dismantling its prey. Loggerheads are considered an endangered species and are protected by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Turtle excluder devices (TEDs) have been implemented in efforts to reduce mortality by providing the turtle an escape route. Loss of suitable nesting beaches and the introduction of exotic predators has also taken a toll on loggerhead populations. Efforts to restore their numbers will require international cooperation since the turtles roam vast areas of ocean and critical nesting beaches are scattered among several countries. (more…)
Endangered. And we haven't had a turtle on the mainpage for a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I expect TCO will support. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support—The article looks to be in good shape. Another nice contribution from the Tree of Life WikiProjects. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Date requests (5 max)
January 8
Elvis Presley (1935–1977) was an American singer and one of the most important figures of 20th-century popular culture. He is often referred to as the "King of Rock and Roll" or simply "the King". Born in Tupelo, Mississippi, Presley moved to Memphis, Tennessee at the age of 13. He began his career there in 1954 and became the leading figure of the newly popular sound of rock and roll with a series of television appearances and chart-topping records during the late 1950s. Conscripted in 1958, Presley relaunched his recording career two years later with some of his most commercially successful work. In 1968, after seven years away from the stage, he returned to live performance in a celebrated comeback television special that led to an extended Las Vegas concert residency and a string of profitable tours. In 1973 Presley staged the first concert broadcast globally via satellite, Aloha from Hawaii, seen by around 1.5 billion viewers. Prescription drug abuse severely affected his health, and he died suddenly in 1977 from cardiac arrest. With his versatile voice and unusually wide success encompassing many genres, Presley is the best-selling solo artist in the history of popular music. Nominated for 14 competitive Grammys, he won three, and received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award at age 36. He has been inducted into multiple music halls of fame. (more...)
Gotta choose one, and this one has a higher chance of eroding over time than does Bowie - be interesting to see how many hits it gets. Question is, whether to leave semiprotection on all day and what pic to use.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Umm, vital article, anniversary of birth, one year FA I see for six points? There really aren't that many free use images are there? I'd suggest the Nixon/Presley one (well, I'm biased), or at least Presley cropped from that. It's high enough resolution to take it. The thing is, that darn shot is so iconic that everyone will know where it came from ... as for the semi protection, what did we do for Michael Jackson?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've put that crop of Elvis in for now at least... I think the blurb needs quite a bit of trimming, it's looking very long at the moment. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also, it doesn't say who Parker is. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- bloody hard to trim this one....all ideas appreciated.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have done quite a bit... thoughts? —Cliftonian (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have done quite a bit... thoughts? —Cliftonian (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- bloody hard to trim this one....all ideas appreciated.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also, it doesn't say who Parker is. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've put that crop of Elvis in for now at least... I think the blurb needs quite a bit of trimming, it's looking very long at the moment. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support – Even though he did used to go around callin' himself the Tupelo, Mississippi Flash. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support – looks good. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Extremely high page view counts, and interwiki links, this is stuff that the world is interested in. --Ettrig (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Shall we run a contest to guess the pageview hits? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Put me down for 547,000... —Cliftonian (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Shall we run a contest to guess the pageview hits? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support with a modest page view guess of 175K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support: An excellent article and an important 20th centiry icon. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- 350,001. Oh wait, this isn't The Price is Right.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support Took awhile to read, but all looks clean and up to FA expectations.--MONGO 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Query,
leaning to opposeunless we hear from one of the significant contributors. Three editors brought this article to FAC, and only one is still active. I see that Ettrig was altering the lead, the significant contributor attempted corrections, and AFAIK hasn't been heard from since on the article or here. I'd like to hear from the signficant contributors that this article is mainpage ready before this is pushed up the line after Ettrig edited (he has unique views on FAC and TFA, see the talk page here, where he also has little experience). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The comment above is clearly a personal attack. I ask you to collaborate in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. --Ettrig (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- oh, my. srsly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does this mean you don't understand that you made a personal attack? Then you need to read the link I provided to the relevant Wikipedia policy. --Ettrig (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sandy made no personal attack here AFAICS, Ettrig; what specifically do you assert is an attack? That you have little experience? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- You did spot a clear one. The first two sentences of the linked policy say: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Another is more subtle and more vicious. The thought that my editing might have caused remaining harm even after having been adjusted. This is not comment on content, it is comment on contributor. --Ettrig (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've read the policy, thanks, and you're over-reacting - simply saying that you have little experience is not an attack. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat, the first descriptive sentence of the policy is Comment on content, not on the contributor. Are we interpreting these words differently or do you not recognize that SandyGeorgia commented on my person and not on the content? Sandy points out that I have unique views on FAC and TFA. In my view this is a clear case of commenting on the person. Nothing is said here about what the article contains or what changes I made to it. I am simply pointing out a breach of Wikipedia policy. Why do you call this overreacting? --Ettrig (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Calling a spade a spade in not an attack and neither is saying you have little experience. If someone pointed out I have little experience with compiling bots that wouldn't be a personal attack either. Interpreting it as such is nonsensical and repeating yourself won't change that. Stop wikilawyering. Nev1 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is this still going on here? I suggest it would be better to remove all of this to a talk page (either WT:TFAR or mine or Ettrig's) so that he can be properly educated without taking up more space here. IF that is done, then I'll go look for the diff where he himself mentioned that he has little experience in this area, but this faulty assertion of a personal attack is disrupting the discussion here that we should be having, which is why articles are being pushed up the TFA line when they have issues, and why this page has fallen into decline since this trend was started-- by Ettrig. The page is becoming useless because of the trend started towards only TFAing high page view FAs, and a faulty assertion of a personal attack is additionally taking up bandwidth there. Take it outside. Does no one have anything to say about 15,000 word FAs on the mainpage, where most readers can't load the file? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Calling a spade a spade in not an attack and neither is saying you have little experience. If someone pointed out I have little experience with compiling bots that wouldn't be a personal attack either. Interpreting it as such is nonsensical and repeating yourself won't change that. Stop wikilawyering. Nev1 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat, the first descriptive sentence of the policy is Comment on content, not on the contributor. Are we interpreting these words differently or do you not recognize that SandyGeorgia commented on my person and not on the content? Sandy points out that I have unique views on FAC and TFA. In my view this is a clear case of commenting on the person. Nothing is said here about what the article contains or what changes I made to it. I am simply pointing out a breach of Wikipedia policy. Why do you call this overreacting? --Ettrig (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've read the policy, thanks, and you're over-reacting - simply saying that you have little experience is not an attack. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- You did spot a clear one. The first two sentences of the linked policy say: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Another is more subtle and more vicious. The thought that my editing might have caused remaining harm even after having been adjusted. This is not comment on content, it is comment on contributor. --Ettrig (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sandy made no personal attack here AFAICS, Ettrig; what specifically do you assert is an attack? That you have little experience? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does this mean you don't understand that you made a personal attack? Then you need to read the link I provided to the relevant Wikipedia policy. --Ettrig (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- oh, my. srsly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's two sides here. Sandy rightfully would like to hear from a significant contributor before this is main page'd. However, simply having non-mainstream views on TFA is far from your typical warning sign. Sandy, you know I love you, but let's not assume too much here, okay? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The comment above is clearly a personal attack. I ask you to collaborate in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. --Ettrig (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly, both PL290 and Rikstar appear to have disengaged from the project, leaving me as the article's sole remaining nominator. Overall, quality has been maintained since it achieved FA status in February 2010. Increased byte count is due largely not to expansion of primary text (though there have been three terse update additions to the "Since 1977" subsection), but to addition of 22 citations and perhaps half as many sources and this recent formatting "cleanup" by Alarbus, which added more than 5 KB. Specifically, Ettrig's edit of the lead was not unreasonable; I did feel it eliminated valuable information, and my partial revert met with no controversy. I believe the article is mainpage ready. DocKino (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doc ... that addressed my concerns, but raised another-- are you saying that Alarbus altered the citation style (without consensus?) and that added 5KB, which could slow down load time? If so, that's exactly the sort of thing that's been happening wrt TFA lately that concerns me, and shouldn't be happening at all. Pls fill us in? Struck my leaning to oppose, since you're on board, but would like to see this push to TFA certain articles according to the preferences of a mere handful of editors (against broad consensus) curtailed, and significant contributor and FA writers' needs taken into consideration-- they did the work, and if they are increasingly disregarded, motivation to write FAs will likely decline (as has, in fact, the use of this page since this push took hold). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Followup, for some reason I can't make Dr pda's prose size script work on that page (can anyone supply the data?), but the page is very slow to load from here-- did the citation style alteration slow down load time, and what are the prose and ref size stats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oopsie, I just discovered that I raised a concern about the article size just after it was promoted and that the problem of citation loading time was raised on the FAC-- it doesn't appear that has been addressed, and if additional KB has been added due to a change in citation style (without or without consensus?), it's no wonder I've a problem loading this article. This is not good for our mainpage readers, who can't all be expected to have fast computers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, the citation style wasn't changed... it looks like he was 'fixing' the old style, but it doesn't look like he actually changed anything besides converting a few CITEREFs to templates and adding a bunch of spaces. Weird. Anyway. The statistics you requested:
- Oopsie, I just discovered that I raised a concern about the article size just after it was promoted and that the problem of citation loading time was raised on the FAC-- it doesn't appear that has been addressed, and if additional KB has been added due to a change in citation style (without or without consensus?), it's no wonder I've a problem loading this article. This is not good for our mainpage readers, who can't all be expected to have fast computers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Followup, for some reason I can't make Dr pda's prose size script work on that page (can anyone supply the data?), but the page is very slow to load from here-- did the citation style alteration slow down load time, and what are the prose and ref size stats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doc ... that addressed my concerns, but raised another-- are you saying that Alarbus altered the citation style (without consensus?) and that added 5KB, which could slow down load time? If so, that's exactly the sort of thing that's been happening wrt TFA lately that concerns me, and shouldn't be happening at all. Pls fill us in? Struck my leaning to oppose, since you're on board, but would like to see this push to TFA certain articles according to the preferences of a mere handful of editors (against broad consensus) curtailed, and significant contributor and FA writers' needs taken into consideration-- they did the work, and if they are increasingly disregarded, motivation to write FAs will likely decline (as has, in fact, the use of this page since this push took hold). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly, both PL290 and Rikstar appear to have disengaged from the project, leaving me as the article's sole remaining nominator. Overall, quality has been maintained since it achieved FA status in February 2010. Increased byte count is due largely not to expansion of primary text (though there have been three terse update additions to the "Since 1977" subsection), but to addition of 22 citations and perhaps half as many sources and this recent formatting "cleanup" by Alarbus, which added more than 5 KB. Specifically, Ettrig's edit of the lead was not unreasonable; I did feel it eliminated valuable information, and my partial revert met with no controversy. I believe the article is mainpage ready. DocKino (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- File size: 483 kB
- Prose size (including all HTML code): 150 kB
- References (including all HTML code): 33 kB
- Wiki text: 178 kB
- Prose size (text only): 92 kB (15642 words) "readable prose size"
- References (text only): 1821 B Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, too large, needs to be cut down, and there are ongoing disputes on the talk page. Thanks Ed, but based on that data I must oppose (this article is outrageously GYNORMOUS, no wonder I can't load it) ... hmmm, it appears that vcite was implemented on the FAC, so why are we now using templates that slow down the article. At 15,000 words, this is just WAY too big, not to mention the load time issues coming from the refs. "Think of the children in Africa" (joke), but sorry, we just can't run articles on the mainpage that most people can't even access, and this article should have been cut down, not increased in size since its FAC. In fact, Presley is our longest FA, and most of the other oversized FAs on that list increased in size after their FACs and should be sent to FAR. Fifteen thousand words is not accessible per load time to most of our readers, and is roughly 50% too big for accessibility (see WP:SIZE)-- better use of summary style should be employed before this article is run on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)